The case for conservation podcast

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

Climate change gets a lot more attention and funding than biodiversity. But, as conservation organizations are keen to point out, climate and biodiversity are intimately linked and there is, therefore, a good argument for addressing them side by side. Part of that argument is that conserving biodiversity is good for the climate. But an even more obvious link is that climate affects biodiversity. Human beings can adapt rapidly to change through innovation. But nature adapts over evolutionary time, much slower than the predicted changes in climate. And yet the countless books that continue be produced about climate change, are almost exclusively focused on its effects on humankind. Adam Welz, however, has just released a highly acclaimed book to fill this gap, “The End of Eden”. Adam is a writer, photographer, filmmaker and self-proclaimed conservation theorist with a long-standing interest in the effects of climate change on biodiversity. We interrogate this big subject, and Adam’s book in particular, in his second appearance on the podcast. In case you missed it, the last time was episode 11, in June 2021, when we discussed the problems with “performative conservation”. Links to resources The End of Eden: Wild Nature in the Age of Climate BreakdownVisit www.case4conservation.com

In decades past, conservation was notorious for ignoring other development goals. These days, its focus has expanded to consider those other goals, including the prevention of poverty and hunger. In fact, there seems to be a tendency to assume that conservation is always compatible with them, and necessary to achieve them. There is certainly truth in that, but are we talking enough about the inevitable trade-offs? And if everyone agrees that we should minimize trade-offs, why is the Green Revolution - one of the greatest “trade-off minimizers” in history often vilified by environmentalists? In this episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast, Prabhu Pingali shares his thoughts on the green revolution, and more generally on trade-offs between development goals. Prabhu is Professor of Applied Economics at Cornell University and has worked in senior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, FAO, the CGIAR, and other key development institutions. Links to resources Unintended consequences lectureAre the Lessons from the Green Revolution relevant for Agricultural Growth and Food Security in the 21st Century?Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path aheadHunger and environmental goals for Asia: Synergies and trade-offs among the SDGsVisit www.case4conservation.com

Species. We take them for granted as the main currency of biodiversity. But how many of us really know what species are? And do we attach too much importance to them, especially in the context of conservation? Over centuries, taxonomists have categorized and re-categorized life forms and graphically presented their relatedness in the form of a so-called ”tree of life”. The trunk of the tree is common to all life on Earth. It branches into major “taxa” like the “kingdoms” of plants, animals and fungi, and then continues branching into increasingly more specific taxa (phylum, class, order, family, genus, etc.) until, near the branch tips, are species and subspecies. The more specific the classification, the less obvious it is where to draw the line between one taxon and another, or between different levels of taxa. Taxonomy, it turns out, is as much an art as it is a science. In this episode Frank Zachos does an excellent job at explaining taxonomy, and the ways in which it is misunderstood, and he embellishes his explanations with a wealth of fascinating examples. Frank is head of the mammal collection at the Natural History Museum in Vienna, Austria, and affiliated professor at the Department of Genetics at UFS, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He has written well over 100 articles and other publications on taxonomy and related topics. Timestamps 02:15 What are species and what’s involved in classifying them? 07:30 Ring species 09:35 Species concepts 14:12 The spectrum of species classification tendencies, from “lumping” to “splitting” 17:45 How important is it to determine the best species concept? 23:38 Are conservationists misusing species as a tool? 25:28 What is a subspecies? 26:54 How many species are there really? 32:52 How can we conserve without using species as a unit of coservation? 35:48 Do we need more taxonomists? 39:01 Classifying the Loch Ness Monster 40:27 A real-world example of how species status can be worth billions of dollars 42:52 How have recent technological advances helped, or not helped, taxonomy? Links to resources Naming the Loch Ness MonsterVisit www.case4conservation.com

Historically, the oceans have received too little attention in discussions about the environment and biodiversity. On the topic of biodiversity loss in particular, however, one marine system has attracted almost as much attention as the rainforests: coral reefs. Coral reefs have even been described as the rainforests of the sea, thanks to their remarkably high levels of biodiversity. Recently, United Nations agencies have been voicing the alarming prediction that the world could lose as much as 99% of its corals within decades, if there is a 2 degree centigrade increase in average global temperature. Meanwhile, however, on the world’s largest reef system, the Great Barrier Reef, a 2021 survey had more positive news. It found that hard coral cover, which is used as a proxy for the health of coral reefs, is at its highest levels since the 1980s. That’s despite global temperatures already having risen by one degree over the past century. So, is the public being misled by messages of doom and gloom? Or are these seemingly contradictory messages somehow reconcilable? With me to answer this central question about corals is Mike Emslie. Mike is head of the Great Barrier Reef Monitoring Programme and senior researcher at the Australian Institute for Marine Science (AIMS). Timestamps 02:29 What are corals, where are they found, and why are they important? 11:28 What's special about the Great Barrier Reef and the "coral triangle"? 18:00 Why are coral reefs particularly important, among marine ecosystems? 23:19 How can we be losing corals if they are recovering on the biggest reef system in the world? 39:19 Are coral bleaching events a new thing? 41:09 Are we focusing enough on helping reefs to adapt to climate change, versus mitigating climate change? 44:20 Reasons to avoid doom & gloom messaging Links to resources Continued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier ReefGreat Barrier Reef: UNESCO calls for In Danger listingAustralian Institute of Marine ScienceVisit www.case4conservation.com

ESG is the latest buzzword in business & biodiversity circles, but it’s not actually new - only newly popular. And it’s one among many terms and acronyms in this field, which may be familiar but are often poorly understood - ESG stands for “environmental, social and governance” investing criteria. Understanding concepts like ESG is consequential because their success relies largely on convincing the general public of their value and their virtue. As we discuss in this episode, however, they are not necessarily all that they’re made out to be. To elucidate this topic with me is Ken Pucker. Ken is a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and Advisory Director at the Boston-based Financial Services firm, Berkshire Partners. He was previously Chief Operating Officer of the outdoor footwear and apparel company, Timberland, one of the first companies to take an interest in sustainable production. He has written extensively on ESG and related issues in Harvard Business Review among other publications. Timestamps 01:47 A brief history of CSR, ESG, and sustainability reporting 09:41 ESG is not about the impact of companies on the environment 13:53 Other concerns about ESG 19:46 Impact investing 22:39 ESG makes policymakers complacent 26:36 Are CSR and ESG in need of reform or are they fundamentally flawed? 29:11 Investors care about impact, but not about how much 31:17 Shopping around effect 38:27 Transparency is not the main thing 41:35 Has TCFD had any effect, and will TNFD have any effect? 43:43 Should corporations serve shareholders or stakeholders? Links to resources ESG Investing Isn't Designed to Save the PlanetGlobal CompactWho Cares Wins 2004GIINThe Case Against Corporate Social ResponsibilityDo investors care about impact?When A Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind Or Destroy ItTCFDTNFDVisit www.case4conservation.com

There is a tendency in societies to adhere to conventional wisdom. We resist challenges to consensus views, and may even dismiss those who do challenge them as conspiracy theorists... which they sometimes are. But perhaps we take that idea too far sometimes. Perhaps we underestimate the importance of having the freedom to challenge orthodoxy. We live in an age in which more people than ever before are lucky enough to inhabit free societies, but recently it has become “conventional” to take issue with some of these hard-earned freedoms - albeit often with good intentions. Even people who don’t follow the news cycle must be familiar with the concepts of cancel culture and de-platforming. In this episode we discuss the notion of questioning orthodoxy, with a focus on the environment and especially conservation. My guest is Russell Galt, Head of Policy and Science at Earthwatch Europe, and previously Senior Programme Coordinator of IUCN’s work on urban conservation and Young Champions of the Earth Coordinator with the United Nations Environment Programme. Russell recently complete a Master of Business Administration at the University of Edinburgh, to complement his earlier studies in ecology. Timestamps 02:39 Historical examples of heterodox thinkers 06:10 False consensus in the scientific literature 09:42 Well-intentioned exaggeration in conservation 12:28 Thought experiment on fighting lies with lies 15:18 The robustness of truth 16:23 Harnessing behavioral science 17:26 Attention-grabbing figures as a means of promoting conservation 24:54 Less well considered threats to life on Earth; looking at the bigger picture 27:08 Nature-based solutions 31:07 Romantic notions of indigenous knowledge 37:30 Important of a culture of debate Links to resources The Science DelusionMessaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease RiskPromoting health and wellbeing through urban forests – Introducing the 3-30-300 ruleSummary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governmentsContinued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier ReefLo—TEK - Design by Radical IndigenismVisit www.case4conservation.com

You may have heard of the concept of “biodiversity risk”, especially in the context of business. It has become increasingly widely used in recent years and the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) is a recent development that has done a lot to popularize the concept. But what exactly is biodiversity risk and, for that matter, what is TNFD? Why has this topic been gathering so much steam lately, and what are some of the possible drawbacks of its progress? With us to demystify these and related questions is Zaneta Sedilekova. Zaneta is a lawyer specializing in climate and biodiversity risk, based in the UK. She is director of the climate and biodiversity risk consultancy firm, Climate Law Lab and Biodiversity Risk Advisor at the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative. Links to resources Biodiversity risk: Legal implications for companies and their directors Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative TNFD Visit www.case4conservation.com

Wherever conservation takes place, at whatever scale, and in whatever form, there’s a good chance that it is somehow affected by the decisions taken under multilateral environmental agreements, or “MEAs”. These agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, are made between multiple countries - sometimes including almost all of the world's nations - with the aim of addressing one or another environmental challenge. There are now hundreds of MEAs, set up to guide national and subnational actions toward a more sustainable future. They are supported by secretariats that coordinate their work and convene large international meetings between the countries that have signed up to them. And yet, most conservationists are unaware of how these high-level agreements work, or how well they work. Peter Bridgewater is a veteran of various MEA negotiations, and has published extensively about biodiversity MEAs in particular. Among various professorships and other positions, he was the Secretary General of the oldest biodiversity MEA, the Ramsar Convention, between 2003 and 2007. In our discussion Peter explains what MEAs are, and he speaks frankly about their importance, their potential, and their shortcomings. Links to resources Peter's publications How did IPBES Estimate '1 Million Species At Risk of Extinction'Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity FrameworkRamsar ConventionConvention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild AnimalsCITESThe International Convention for the Regulation of WhalingBasel, Rotterdam and Stockholm ConventionsVisit www.case4conservation.com

In days gone by development (of cities, infrastructure, agriculture, etc.) happened without regard for the environment. And it was really the devastating effects of unimpeded development that led to the establishment and early growth of the environmental movement, broadly speaking. We have become much more efficient at using land and other resources, but development remains inevitable. In theory, biodiversity offsets cancel out the effect of development by conserving biodiversity "elsewhere". But that’s just theory. Biodiversity offsets are controversial for a number of reasons. It is, however, likely that we are stuck with them as a tool to mitigate biodiversity loss. Joining me on episode 29 of The Case for Conservation Podcast is ecologist at the University if Queensland, Martine Maron. For much of her career Martine has been researching offsets, and doing her best to make sure they are properly implemented. In our discussion she explains what they are, why we’re stuck with them, and how to make the most of them. Links to resources Videos - IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Thematic Group Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity OffsettingOn track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mineVisit www.case4conservation.com

After decades of struggling for recognition, environmental issues, including biodiversity conservation, have exploded onto the global scene in recent years. This is incredibly encouraging and gratifying, but are we sufficiently aware of the risks that come with such vastly increased public support? How much is politics influencing the public discourse on the environment? Are we paying enough attention to other, interrelated, societal goals and the trade-offs between them? In the last episode Esther Krakue provided a fairly critical view of environmental activism with a focus mostly on climate change. With that in mind, I am joined this time by Omnia El Omrani, a young Egyptian medical doctor and self-described climate activist. Omnia has worked with organizations like the WHO, the UN climate convention, and the Global Climate and Health Alliance, and she was the youth envoy to the President of COP27 - the big UN climate conference hosted by Egypt in late 2022. Omnia comes from a different perspective to Esther, and I think that this provides an interesting contrast - I suggest you listen to these two discussions as a set, but not in any particular order. Visit www.case4conservation.com

After decades of struggling for recognition, environmental issues, including biodiversity conservation, have exploded onto the global scene in recent years. This is incredibly encouraging and gratifying, but are we sufficiently aware of the risks that come with such vastly increased public support? How much is politics influencing the public discourse on the environment? Are we paying enough attention to other, interrelated, societal goals and the trade-offs between them? Esther Krakue is a young broadcaster, writer, and talk TV contributor. She’s been on the media scene for only a few years, but she features on various well-known TV channels, podcasts and other forums. She has some strong opinions on how environmentalism, especially environmental activism, may be heading in the wrong direction, and could even threaten the movement itself. Links to resources referred to in the episode Can GMOs benefit biodiversity? Loss and damageDead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa Visit www.case4conservation.com

This month, for the first time, I am the interviewee rather than the interviewer. This episode was recorded for BioScience Talks, the podcast of the journal BioScience, which recently published an article that I co-authored. The article is about science and media communication around Covid-19 and, in particular, the way that some of the scientific literature, and much of the media, have portrayed the relationship between land change and disease spillover risk. To be clear, my co-authors and I are not suggesting that the destruction of nature is not a key driver of spillover. There is plenty of evidence that it is. We are pointing out why this is not always the case, and why it’s risky to imply that it is. Visit www.case4conservation.com

Covid-19 has, probably more than anything, ever, made science communication a matter of public interest. A couple of weeks before recording this episode, the journal BioScience published an article that I co-authored, which takes a critical look at one aspect of science messaging - the way it has portrayed the relationship between land change and infectious disease risk. That paper will actually be the focus of next month's episode of the podcast, but this month I am joined by two of my young co-authors on that paper to discuss science communication more generally. All three of us are science communicators in some sense, but we're novices in this field. So this is not an authoritative overview but rather a discussion of perceptions based on what we have observed, especially over the past couple of years. Neil Waters is a Canadian ecologist who has been studying and working in Tokyo, where he currently teaches science writing. Erin Kawazu is part of the communications team at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) in Hayama, not far from Tokyo, where I also work. She has a background in health and the environment. Links to resources: Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2021/22Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk Time stamps: coming soon Visit www.case4conservation.com