The Case for Conservation Podcast

The concept of biodiversity loss is absolutely integral to conservation, and I have never met anyone who has seriously challenged the idea that too many species are going extinct, nor that their extinction is a result of human pressures. So, what do we make of multiple studies telling us that we shouldn’t be focusing so much on biodiversity loss? These studies say that, on average in samples across the world, roughly equal numbers of sites are increasing in species richness and decreasing. Maria Dornelas is the ecologist, from the University of Lisbon and the University of St Andrews, at the centre of this research and she joins me to elaborate. It should be mentioned right at the start that Maria is not suggesting that biodiversity loss is not a problem, but she explains why she thinks we are doing conservation a disservice by focusing on it the way we do. Maria emphasized the importance of nuance in conversations about conservation, and this discussion is an illustration of the importance of avoiding too much generalization and simplification. Links to resources: Looking back on biodiversity change: lessons for the road aheadAssemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic LossBioTIMEInside BiodiversityVisit www.case4conservation.com

Although we all have our problems, war is usually not among them. But if you do live in a war-torn country like Ukraine, war is everyones’s problem. And yet, in Ukraine at least, somehow life goes on including activities like conservation of the environment. The question is how, and why, given the many, more urgent, priorities. Marine Elbakidze is an Associate Professor at Lviv University, who focuses on sustainable landscape management, forest governance, and the social-ecological systems approach to environmental conservation. A year and a half ago she left a comfortable job in Sweden to return to Ukraine and practice her profession in her home country despite its ongoing war. Links to resources Understanding the impact of the war on people-nature relationships in UkraineVisit www.case4conservation.com

Conservation competes with a variety of other societal priorities and interests for funding and for attention. As a result, conservation projects, programmes and even broader concepts are frequently “packaged” in ways that prioritize grabbing attention. But promoting or marketing conservation initiatives in this way carries certain risks. Among them is the risk of being short-lived and without a real basis in the substance of the actual initiative – in other words a fad. Another is the risk of losing what has already been learned, when initiatives are “re-packaged” under a new buzzword. Kent Redford is the principal at Archipelago Consulting, and previously Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society Institute in New York. In 2013 Kent published a paper in the journal, Conservation Biology to flag his concerns about conservation fads. I called him up to revisit this topic, because it relates quite closely to my increasing concern about conservation buzzwords. Links to resources Fads, Funding, and Forgetting in Three Decades of Conservation Visit www.case4conservation.com

America’s reelection of Donald Trump has brought about all manner of changes in US and global politics. Some have a direct effect on environmental issues while many more may be indirectly consequential. The media, it seems, has reacted mostly with horror and predictions of disaster, and there are probably any number of commentators willing to echo those sentiments on a podcast. It might be more interesting though, and perhaps more informative, to hear the voice of a less critical environmentalist. Quill Robinson is an Associate Fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), a Washington DC-based think tank, and Assistant Director of the institute's Energy Security and Climate Change Program. He was a guest on the podcast three years back and was kind enough to accept another invitation, to weigh in on this topic. Visit www.case4conservation.com

Among most legacy media outlets and on social media, narratives about environmental issues, as well as social issues, are noticeably more extreme than they used to be. From activists to academics and from organizations to corporations, it has become common to hear phrases like “shattering Earth's natural limits”, “ecological meltdown”, and “boiling oceans”. Much of this rhetoric comes from a place of genuine concern and it usually contains important elements of truth. But it’s also often emotive and inaccurate, and there is reason to believe that it could be causing more harm than good. Ragini Prasad, an environmental engineer turned coach for leaders and changemakers, has long challenged the apocalyptic narrative surrounding our environmental discourse. She wants to calm these conversations and empower individuals to rediscover their agency. In this episode, Ragini emphasizes the importance of openness to new perspectives and points out that every existential crisis presents an opportunity for individual and collective evolution. She advocates for organic change—change that naturally emerges when we align ourselves with principles of life, resilience, and hope. Visit www.case4conservation.com

It’s not often that biodiversity legislation grabs international headlines, but thats what happened repeatedly in 2024 with the European Union’s new Nature Restoration Law. It happened first because of the ambitious nature of the law; and then because of the political tussle around its rejection and eventual approval. Along the way it gathered a trail of detractors and supporters, and has raised hopes as well as concerns, depending on who you speak to. The law’s overarching target is for Member States to put in place restoration measures in at least 20% of the EU's land areas and 20% of its sea areas by 2030. Brian MacSharry, who was also my guest for episode 10 on protected areas, is Head of the Nature and Biodiversity Group at the European Environment Agency and he has had a birds-eye view of the development of the law. He kindly agreed to respond to some of the critiques of the law, but first he goes into some detail about its content and its journey through the political process. Links to resources Nature Restoration LawVisit www.case4conservation.com

From time to time certain concepts rise to prominence in biodiversity conservation circles, and some of these follow in the footsteps of climate change analogs. One such concept is biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits are a mechanism that allow for biodiversity conservation or restoration activities to derive a revenue stream through the production and sale of a quantifiable unit of improvement in biodiversity. Despite the technical and philosophical challenges involved in trading in biodiversity credits, or even defining a single unit, biodiversity credits are being used to offset damages to biodiversity. And given the explosion of private and public interest in biodiversity credits, they are worthy of further exploration. Helping us to explore them is Harrison Carter, an interdisciplinary conservation scientist at the University of Oxford’s Biology Department. Harrison has studied biodiversity credits in detail and shares his personal views on this complex topic. This is a fairly technical conversation, but non-conservationists should still find it interesting, and it gets easier as it goes along. We talk about the good and the bad around biodiversity credits, starting with a broad description of the concept. Links to resources: What is a unit of nature? A webpage from the University of Oxford's Department of Biology about biodiversity credits including Harrison's work Visit www.case4conservation.com

Half a century ago a group of more than 2,000 scientists signed a warning of environmental crisis and nuclear war. Named after the French town where it was compiled, the “Menton Message” turned out to be somewhat hyperbolic in its environmental predictions, and did not account for some of humankind’s remarkable developmental progress over the following decades. However, some of its concerns certainly remain prescient today. And so another, smaller, group of scientists convened, on the 50-year anniversary of the Menton Message, to revisit and modernize some of its assertions. The resulting document is “A letter to fellow citizens of Earth”, which was also summarized in an article for the journal “Nature”. It makes three key points: Although the new letter acknowledges some of the progress that we have made since the Menton Message, it emphasizes the threats and asserts the urgent need for change. Sharachchandra Lele is one of the two main authors of the 2022 letter, and the Nature article. I pushed him on the accuracy of some of the letter’s claims and assertions. The resulting conversation interrogates different aspects of the letter, and questions the idea that we are on completely the wrong track to make things right. Our conversation jumps around a bit and does not follow the sequence of the letter. But it’s about more than the letter. It’s about the notion that we need to drastically change the way we run the planet and how to affect those changes. This episode and episode 48 with Ron Bailey function as counter-points to each other, so they can be listened to as a set. Links to resources The Menton MessageA letter to fellow citizens of EarthFifty years after UN environment summit, researchers renew call for actionVisit www.case4conservation.com

International organizations, or “IOs” for short, are typically organizations to which multiple countries belong as members. They cover virtually every aspect of human endeavor and there are many that are related to environmental protection. International organizations may influence our lives quite profoundly and yet, outside our own field, we might struggle to name more than a few of them. Furthermore, it has been proposed that most of them are not functioning entities, but rather so-called“zombie organizations”. That’s what Julia Gray has suggested. Julia is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, who has been researching zombie organizations for years. She joins me to explain how zombie organizations come about; why we don’t notice them; and what are their consequences. Links to resources Life, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International OrganizationsInternational Studies QuarterlyThe Montreal ProtocolCARICOMVisit www.case4conservation.com

Protection of the environment is strongly associated with regulation of the human activities that threaten it, and regulation is usually administered by government. Although almost everyone would probably agree that some regulation is necessary, regulation has a patchy record when it comes to environmental protection. And there is another approach to achieving environmental goals. Free market environmentalism, instead of protecting nature from market forces, harnesses those forces to protect nature. Or at least that's the idea. Ronald Bailey is the longtime science writer for Reason Magazine, a renowned American libertarian news & opinion outlet that’s been around for more than 50 years. Ron joins me to flesh out the case for free market environmentalism. Links to resources Ronald BaileyThe limits to growthPopulation bombSilent Spring Environmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do GovernmentsThe Environmental TrinityOur World in DataVisit www.case4conservation.com

There are few environmental issues more emotive than the hunting of whales. Although the focus of environmentalists has shifted to other topics in recent times, whaling remains contentious whenever it is brought up. This is understandable considering that, for the first half of the 20th century and into the 1970s, several whale species were hunted to near-extinction. But as crude oil took over from whale oil as the fuel of industry whale populations began making impressive recoveries. Nevertheless, a handful of countries and populations continue to hunt them, much to the chagrin of the rest of the world. Perhaps the most high profile whaling country is Japan. To add to the saga, in 2019 Japan ended about seven decades of membership of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) - the global body responsible for the “management of whaling and conservation of whales”. There are countless sources providing the anti-whaling point of view, to some of which I will provide links in the podcast description. But comprehensive accounts of the other side of the story are less easy to find. Joji Morishita has been, among many other things, Japan’s Commissioner to the IWC (2013 - 2018) and IWC Chair (2016 - 2018) and I doubt there is any better person in the world to tell Japan’s side of the whaling story. In this fascinating discussion he explains why Japan withdrew from the IWC, and he takes on many of the core arguments against whaling. Links to resources Japan whaling: Why commercial hunts have resumed despite outcryJapan's Withdrawal from International Whaling RegulationCommercial WhalingHistory of WhalingSave the WhalesReflections on the Future of the International Whaling CommissionVisit www.case4conservation.com

Agriculture has been by far the biggest driver of land change and land degradation worldwide. And yet, it is also fundamental to the very existence of humankind. This mismatch often comes up in public discourse. Over the past year or two, for example, several European countries have seen extensive farmer protests - against rising costs and restrictive environmental regulations, among other things. Environmental groups have responded to the farmers’ appeals mostly with indignation… and yet farmers and environmentalists have a lot in common - at east potentially. Philippe Birker is co-founder of “Climate Farmers”, and his work is aimed mostly at promoting regenerative agriculture. He and I cover a range of topics in the discussion that follows, from the farmer protests to the relationship between agrochemical companies and government. Along the way, there were several “rabbit holes” that we could have gone down, and several points that I would have liked to challenge Philippe on in greater depth. But, with limited available time, I needed to bookmark most of these for another time and for future guests. Visit www.case4conservation.com

Insects are among the most abundant organisms on Earth. About 350,000 beetle species, alone, have been described by science and this is considered to be only a fraction of their total number. In a variety of ways, insects are a fundamental part of natural and human-adapted systems. While some cause disease or ruin crops, others play a key role in ecosystem service provision, for example by pollinating certain crops or as food for other beneficial animals and people. Overall, the loss of insect species is a major concern. Some of the more exuberant headlines broadcasting this message have gone so far as to declare an imminent “insectageddon”. However, although many insect species are declining or in danger of decline, there is reason to be wary of such excessive claims. Data need to be carefully considered, revealing the complex patterns of change. Unfortunately the media, in particular, is often incentivized to focus on the more extreme findings and neglect the nuances. Jane Hill (OBE) is president of the Royal Entomological Society and a professor at the University of York. She helps me to pick apart the "insectageddon" idea, including how valid it is and how it came about in the first place. Links to Resources How worried should we really be about "insectageddon"? Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature'Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its driversVisit www.case4conservation.com

Humankind’s transformation of the Earth is embodied in the idea that we are living in the “Anthropocene”. Most people who have heard of this concept were probably unaware that it describes a specific unit of geological measurement - an epoch. A debate has been ongoing for more than a decade about whether to make that designation official - for the Anthropocene to take over from the Holocene epoch. This debate concluded just a few weeks ago with a definitive “no”. In this episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast renowned Anthropocene expert Erle Ellis explains what happened to the Anthropocene… and why it doesn’t really matter that it was rejected as an epoch. Erle is an environmental scientist who divides his academic time between the university of Maryland in the US, and Oxford University in the UK. He is a prolific author and public commentator on this and related topics. Links to resources Anthropocene: A Very Short IntroductionThe Anthropocene is not an epochVisit www.case4conservation.com

Conservation and sustainability scientists are often expected to advise policymakers and other decision-makers. But some of the issues that they are expected to advise on, have broader consensus than others. So, when is it appropriate to advise? When is it appropriate to advocate? When should they simply present all the options or interpretations, and leave it to the decision-makers? Françoise Cardou is a plant and a community ecologist and postdoctoral fellow at Carlton University in Ottawa, interested in understanding how people and nature affect each other in socio-ecological systems. In a recent paper in Biological Conservation, she and her colleague Mark Vellend discuss how important it is for conservation scientists to know which role is appropriate, to avoid being so-called “stealth advocates”. Links to resources Stealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biologyVisit www.case4conservation.com

Sustainability science, which includes conservation biology and various other environmental studies, is not a “hard science” like physics or mathematics. Nevertheless, one might expect it to be reasonably independent of political affiliation. But is this the case? If not, what is the problem with leaning too far in one political direction, especially if that direction is left and generally considered to be “pro environment”? If it is a problem, what can we do about it? Örjan Bodin is a sustainability scientist at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, who has thought a lot about this topic and published a recent paper on it. Örjan is quick to point out that he has not formally studied political polarization. However, with decades of research experience in sustainability science, he provides some compelling reasons why we should pay attention to this overlooked but potentially highly consequential issue. Links to resources Has sustainability science turned left?Visit www.case4conservation.com

Capitalism gets a lot of negative press these days, and one of the main arguments against it is the environmental degradation with which it’s associated. But how much is capitalism itself responsible, and how much are people conflating it with associated phenomena? Are the realistic alternatives any better, or should our efforts be focused on reforming this system, which has already done so much for human flourishing? Russell Galt has many thoughts about the problems with capitalism, but he is also wary of how we go about changing the system. Russell is Head of Policy and Science at Earthwatch Europe, a Partner at the sustainability consultancy, Value-based Work, and Chief Development Officer at Urban Biodiversity Hub. He’s also a friend, upon whom I know I can rely for an honest opinion, and he recently completed an MBA to add to his environmental qualifications. This discussion attempts to touch on various aspects of the arguments for and against capitalism in the context of the environment. The main point is to illustrate the complexities of the issue, rather than to arrive at definitive answers to my questions. Links to resources UK updates water company insolvency laws amid fears over sector’s financesValue-based Work Visit www.case4conservation.com

As a result of our success as a species, we have been ushering other species toward extinction for thousands of years. The pace of those extinctions increased markedly with the growth of the world’s population since the Industrial Revolution. But we are now within reach of the “Jurassic Park” -type fantasy of being able to reverse extinctions - to bring back species from the dead. On the other hand, assuming we get beyond the remaining technological obstacles, de-extinction is still a very complex topic with conservation and ecological considerations that are not necessarily being considered by those who are most likely to make it happen. Virginia Matzek is a restoration ecologist and professor at Santa Clara University, who navigates us through this convoluted subject. The first part of the discussion is an explanation of how de-extinction “works”. After that, we get into the various arguments “for” and “against”. Virginia is remarkably even-handed in her treatment of both sides of the argument, and some of her reasons are not what one might expect. Links to resources The Species That Went Extinct TwiceRevive & RestoreColossal Laboratories & BiosciencesInto the wild: playing God with resurrection biologyVisit www.case4conservation.com

Many conservation managers and scientists may not be aware that there is a single, common set of global biodiversity targets that inform national conservation strategy in almost every country in the world. These 23 targets are the main part of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”, or GBF. The GBF was agreed on by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in late 2022, and the targets are meant to be achieved by 2030. This is a monumental task, considering that the multi-year strategy that preceded the GBF, which concluded in 2020, unfortunately failed to fully achieve any of its targets. The GBF is also accompanied by a monitoring framework of indictors for countries to measure their success toward achieving the GBF’s targets. That monitoring framework is still being compiled, and an “ad hoc technical expert group” has been tasked to guide its development and completion by late 2024. The GBF and its monitoring framework might seem distant and disconnected from on-the-ground conservation but they can be hugely influential on prioritization of conservation worldwide. Conservationists of any kind would probably benefit from a better understanding of what’s behind them, and what’s inside them. Alice Hughes is a conservation scientist, prolific author of peer-reviewed articles, and Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong, who has published two recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze the GBF. She joins me to discuss the challenges behind the GBF and its monitoring framework, and she is open about her concerns over the setting and measuring of the GBF targets. We also explore how the GBF and its monitoring framework might be improved, or might have been improved. Links to resources: The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve itThe Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity FrameworkThe Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife tradeVisit www.case4conservation.com

This month’s episode is about activism and science communication, and whether or not they should be combined. There are obvious tensions here because science is meant to be as objective as possible, while activism is characteristically impulsive and political. And, of course, there can be activists on both sides of a debate. There can also be incomplete or poorly reported science, upon which that activism is based. On the other hand, could there be a role for scientists to guide activism, making it more rooted in fact, more strategic, and more appealing in its approach? Andrea Bandelli is a science communicator, and former Head of International Relations at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in The Netherlands. He helps to unravel this topic, pointing out that activism need not be “brutal”, and arguing for more overlap between science communicators and activists. Links to resources Activists as “alternative” science communicators — Exploring the facets of science communication in societal contextsThe blurred boundaries between science and activismThe Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical TrialsVisit www.case4conservation.com