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 ahead - 2023 article by Maria and colleagues.Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss - Maria's 2014 paper in Science, which announced the surprising results of her research.BioTIME - Global database of assemblage time series for quantifying and understanding biodiversity change.Inside Biodiversity - Related IDIV podcast that is referenced in the intro to this episode.Visit 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 resourcesUnderstanding the impact of the war on people-nature relationships in Ukraine - An article that Marine recently published in the journal, Ecosystem Services, which is in line with the discussion.Visit 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 resourcesFads, Funding, and Forgetting in Three Decades of Conservation – A relevant publication in the journal, Conservation Biology, which Kent lead-authored in 2013.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 resourcesNature Restoration Law - Outline of the law on the website of the European CommissionVisit 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 workVisit 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:“individualistic, materialistic, exploitative short-term thinking has led us to lose sight of the public good”“a focus on economic growth distracts from achieving well-being and happiness… and… destroys our shared resources”“current economic, political and social institutions are failing us”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 resourcesThe Menton Message - The original French version of the message (the English is probably available online somewhere)A letter to fellow citizens of Earth - The follow-up to the Menton Message, compiled by Sharad and othersFifty years after UN environment summit, researchers renew call for action - 2022 correspondence in the journal, Nature, co-authored by Sharad, and summarizing "A letter to fellow citizens of Earth"Visit 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 resourcesLife, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Organizations - A 2018 article on the topic of zombie organizations, in International Studies QuarterlyThe Montreal Protocol - Background on The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which we refer in the episodeCARICOM - This is a link to the website of the Caribbean Community, to which Julia refers at the end of the episodeVisit 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 resourcesRonald Bailey - Ron's profile page on the Reason websiteThe limits to growth - 1972 book about the possibility of exponential economic and population growthPopulation bomb - 1968 book by Paul Erlich that speculated about the dangers of overpopulationSilent Spring - 1962 book by Rachel Carson about the effects of pesticide on the environment and peopleEnvironmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do Governments - 2014 article of Ron's in Reason Magazone, including links to further information, about how indigenous peoples and local communities can be good stewards of the environemntThe Environmental Trinity — 2024 article by Jesse Ausubel about ecomodernism and decoupling from resource-useOur World in Data - A website that shows global trends in easy-to-grasp graphic formatVisit 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 resourcesJapan whaling: Why commercial hunts have resumed despite outcry - 2019 BBC overview of the topicJapan's Withdrawal from International Whaling Regulation - Book co-authored by Joji in 2023Commercial Whaling - International Whaling Commission statements on the whaling moratorium and commercial whalingHistory of Whaling - A chronology of whaling going back to the 9th Century, on the website of the Japan Whaling AssociationSave the Whales - GreenPeace website on whalingReflections on the Future of the International Whaling Commission - The first of a four-part series of articles by Joji Visit 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 ResourcesHow worried should we really be about "insectageddon"? - A Guardian interview with Jane in 2022.Plummeting insect numbers 'threaten collapse of nature' - An earlier Guardian article, pushing the idea of "insectageddon".Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers - The 2019 peer-reviewed literature review that may have started the "insectageddon" idea, in the journal Biological Conservation.Visit 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 resourcesAnthropocene: A Very Short Introduction - 2018 book authored by Erle.The Anthropocene is not an epoch − but the age of humans is most definitely underway - A recent update from Erle in "The Conversation".Visit 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 resourcesStealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biology - Françoise's article in the journal, Biological Conservation.Visit 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 resourcesHas sustainability science turned left? - Örjan's article in the journal, Sustainability Science.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 resourcesUK updates water company insolvency laws amid fears over sector's finances - Financial Times article about the water company issue Russell discusses.Value-based Work - The sustainability consultancy at which Russell is a partner.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 resourcesThe Species That Went Extinct Twice - Forbes article describing the story of the short-lived return of the Pyrenean ibex.Revive & Restore - Website of the organization promoting the incorporation of biotechnologies into standard conservation practice.Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences - The outfit working on de-extincting the wooly mammoth and thylacine.Into the wild: playing God with resurrection biology - A written Santa Clara interview with Virginia.Visit 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 it - A recent paper by Alice and a colleague in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - text of the GBF including some of the terms duscussed in this episode. A link to the actual text of the GBF is at the bottom of the page ("decision 15/4").The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next? - Alice's earlier paper on the GBF.Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade - Recent journal article by Alice and colleagues that relates to a specific aspect of the GBF.Visit 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 resourcesActivists as “alternative” science communicators — Exploring the facets of science communication in societal contexts - A relevant set of commentaries in the Journal of Science CommunicationThe blurred boundaries between science and activism - A relevant article by Andrea, with self-explanatory titleThe Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials - An article from the 90s, the topic of which Andrea uses as an example in the episodeVisit 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 resourcesThe End of Eden: Wild Nature in the Age of Climate Breakdown - Adam's new book, released on 26 September 2023 by Bloomsbury.Visit 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 resourcesUnintended consequences lecture - A video masterclass presented by PrabhuAre the Lessons from the Green Revolution relevant for Agricultural Growth and Food Security in the 21st Century? - An open access book chapter by Prabhu on "the policy redirections needed for a ‘redux' version of the Green Revolution that enhances food and nutrition security and economic development while minimizing social, environmental, and health tradeoffs"Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead - Prabhu's 2012 PNAS article, to which we refer in our discussionHunger and environmental goals for Asia: Synergies and trade-offs among the SDGs - An article by Prabhu in 2022 article in the journal "Environmental Challenges"Visit 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.Timestamps02:15   What are species and what's involved in classifying them?07:30   Ring species09:35   Species concepts14:12   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 Monster40:27   A real-world example of how species status can be worth billions of dollars42:52   How have recent technological advances helped, or not helped, taxonomy?Links to resourcesNaming the Loch Ness Monster - 1975 paper in the journal, "Nature", which we discussed during the episodeMore coming soon...Visit 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).Timestamps02:29  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 resourcesContinued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef - Summary of a recent survey by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) report Great Barrier Reef: UNESCO calls for In Danger listing - Article about calls for changing the status of the Great Barrier Reef, mentioned by MikeAustralian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) - Website of the institute responsible for the Great Barrier Reef SurveyVisit 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.Timestamps01:47  A brief history of CSR, ESG, and sustainability reporting09:41  ESG is not about the impact of companies on the environment13:53  Other concerns about ESG19:46  Impact investing 22:39  ESG makes policymakers complacent26:36  Are CSR and ESG in need of reform or are they fundamentally flawed?29:11  Investors care about impact, but not about how much31:17  Shopping around effect38:27  Transparency is not the main thing41:35  Has TCFD had any effect, and will TNFD have any effect?43:43  Should corporations serve shareholders or stakeholders?Links to resourcesESG Investing Isn't Designed to Save the Planet - One of Ken's most recent articles in Harvard Business ReviewGlobal Compact Who Cares Wins 2004 - Publication in which the term "ESG" was introduced in 2004GIIN - Global impact investing networkThe Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility - Wall Street Journal article by Aneel KarnaniDo investors care about impact? - Article mentioned by KenWhen A Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind Or Destroy It TCFD - Task force on Climate-related Financial DisclosuresTNFD - Task force on Nature-related Financial DisclosuresVisit 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 thinkers06:10 False consensus in the scientific literature09:42 Well-intentioned exaggeration in conservation12:28 Thought experiment on fighting lies with lies15:18 The robustness of truth 16:23 Harnessing behavioral science17:26 Attention-grabbing figures as a means of promoting conservation24:54 Less well considered threats to life on Earth; looking at the bigger picture27:08 Nature-based solutions31:07 Romantic notions of indigenous knowledge37:30 Important of a culture of debateLinks to resourcesThe Science Delusion - Book by Rupert Sheldrake exploring the idea that science is  constricted by assumptions Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk - Article in BioScience on the need for nuanced science communicationPromoting health and wellbeing through urban forests – Introducing the 3-30-300 rule - IUCN website introducing Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch's "3-30-300" concept on urban conservationSummary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments - IPCC webpage that makes reference to the loss of coral reefs under dofferent scenarios of climate changeContinued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef - Summary of a recent survey by the Australian Institute of Marine Science AIMS report Lo—TEK - Design by Radical Indigenism - Julia Watson's website, with explanation and links to her book on how indigenous peoples and local communities use natureVisit 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 resourcesBiodiversity risk: Legal implications for companies and their directors - Recent report by Zanetta and colleagueCommonwealth Climate and Law Initiative TNFD - The Task force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures discussed in this episodeVisit 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 resourcesPeter's publications - Many of these publications are relevant to the podcast discussion, so have a browse throughHow did IPBES Estimate '1 Million Species At Risk of Extinction' - An explanation of the much-publicized figureConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - The biodiversity framework convention that emerged from the Rio Earth Summit with the climate and desertification conventionsThe Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - International framework strategy for countries to follow for the period leading up to 2030Ramsar Convention - The convention on wetlands, which is the oldest of what are regarded as the "biodiversity-related conventions"Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals - Another biodiversity MEA mentioned a few times in the episodeCITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, another biodiversity MEA mentioned a few times in the episodeThe International Convention for the Regulation of WhalingBasel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions - Clustered MEAs on different aspects of pollutionVisit 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 resourcesVideos - IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Thematic Group – short animated explainer videos about offsetting. Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting - an overview article about biodiversity offsetting in the journal BioScience. On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar's biggest mine - an interesting recent case study by a colleague of Martine, published int he journal Nature Sustainability. 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?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 episodeCan GMOs benefit biodiversity? - Episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast with Ghanaian environmental journalist, Joseph Opoku Gakpo, who writes about GMOs and other aspects of agriculture, the environment, and rural development.Loss and damage - Reports and technical documents pertaining to the work of the “loss and damage workstream” of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa - Book by Zambian economist, Dambisa Moyo, on the drawbacks of aid and the problems with tied aid.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 2021/22 - Good news from the Great Barrier Reef, briefly discussed in this episode.Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk - The BioScience paper that I recently published with Neil, Erin and three other authorsTime stamps:coming soonVisit www.case4conservation.com

Cities - even the greenest of them - replace nature with glass, concrete and asphalt. And their footprint extends far beyond their boundaries to provide for the needs of the thousands, millions, or ten of millions of people concentrated within them. They are home to most of the people on Earth and are the sources of most pollution. But it seems cities are also an inevitable result of the development of civilization. They are growing in size and number, especially in some of the most biodiverse and least spoiled part of the planet. So, does that mean they are a fundamental obstacle to conservation? Should conservationists be trying to de-urbanize? My guest for this episode of The Case for Conservation Podcast answers those questions with an emphatic "no".Eric Sanderson is a landscape ecologist and Senior Conservation Ecologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, based at the Bronx Zoo in New York. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers and other publications on a wide range of conservation topics. These include two books, one of which, Manahatta: A Natural History of New York City, was a New York Times bestseller when it was published in 2009. See episode 6 with Debra Roberts for another look at cities and conservation, from a different angleLinks to resources:From Bottleneck to Breakthrough: Urbanization and the Future of Biodiversity Conservation - Eric's 2018 paper in BioScience that forms the basis for much of our discussion (open access).Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York City - Eric's 2009 book that compares an 18th-century map of Manhattan's landscape to the contemporary situation there.Time stamps:...coming soonVisit www.case4conservation.com

Few technologies are viewed with as much suspicion as genetic modification. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned in several parts of the world; an entire protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is dedicated to controlling their effects on biodiversity; and national and international agreements and regulations tightly legislate their use across a broad range of applications. Why, then, do GMOs continue to grow in popularity? Why do farmers in the developing world consider them game-changing tools to deal with the demands of making a living, or even a livelihood, from agriculture? And what's all this subversive business about GMOs being good for biodiversity? Joseph Opoku Gakpo is an environmental journalist who writes about GMOs and other aspects of agriculture, the environment, and rural development. He is Ghana correspondent for "Alliance for Science", and was awarded the Ghana Journalists Association prize for Best Journalist in Poverty Alleviation Reporting in 2015. Joseph has a passion for sharing the struggle of farmers and other rural people, which is reflected in his refreshingly clear and level-headed style of reporting. In this illuminating discussion we talk about how GMOs got such a bad name; whether any of the allegations against them are reasonable; what they mean for poor people around the world; and what is the nature of their relationship with biodiversity.Links to resources:Ghana's GMO conversation turns to biodiversity - A 2018 article by Joseph for Alliance for Science Ghanaian scientist: ‘Africa needs GMOs more than the rest of the world' - A 2022 article by Joseph in which he talks about and quotes one of the academics he has worked withThe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - Website for the protocol discussed with JosephTime stamps:02:09: What are GMOs?04:17: Why GMOs are so controversial 08:20: The geographical chronology of GMO introduction09:27: Why GMOs shouldn't be shunned11:41: What about impacts on health; terminator genes; and contamination of other organisms?17:56: How GMOs can help biodiversity20:00: Savings to farmers25:00: The slow uptake of GMOs in some parts of the world and the targeted traits of GMOs30:53: Changing perspectives on GMOs, and local champions of GMOs40:25: Changing attitudes in Europe?43:08: Does political polarization play a role?45:57: The Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyVisit www.case4conservation.com

This episode is about environmental alarmism. Alarmism means exaggerating danger and thereby causing needless worry or panic. These days the media is flooded with proclamations and predictions of ecological catastrophe. There is no doubt that our environmental challenges are many, and huge, and they certainly do present dangers. But are they being seen in the context of broader developmental challenges and associated trade-offs? Or in the context of humankind's past achievements, and our ability to adapt? And is alarmist rhetoric the best way to motivate action to deal with them? Among the people offering answers to questions like these, is this month's guest on The Case for Conservation Podcast, Matt Ridley.Matt was, until he retired last year, an elected member of the UK Parliament's House of Lords. He's been been writer and/or editor for The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, among other publications, and his non-fiction books have sold more than a million copies. They include "The Rational Optimist", "The Evolution of Everything", "How Innovation Works" and, most recently, "Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19". His 2010 TED talk, "When Ideas Have Sex", has been viewed more than 2 and a half million times, and he's spoken on various other popular forums including, quite recently, the Jordan Peterson Podcast.Links to resources:Mattridley.co.uk - Matt's website, where all his other books, his blog, and other information can be foundThe Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves - Perhaps the most relevant of Matt's books to our conversation - published in 2010How Innovation Works: Serendipity, Energy and the Saving of Time - another of Matt's books relevant to our discussion - published in 2020Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 - Matt's most recent book, co-authored with Alina Chan (2021)When ideas have sex - Matt's TED talk in 2010, which has had more than two and a half million viewsEmissions – the ‘business as usual' story is misleading - 2020 article by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters in the journal, "Nature", about RCP 8.5Time stamps:02:50: Matt's response to a Guardian article about climate change terminology06:59: Species conservation and reports of species loss due to to climate change13:35: A counsel of despair15:32: The possible influence of funding in environmental rhetoric17:40: How innovation helps conservation24:40: How ecological footprint calculations may be misleading; finite resources34:23: The Jevons paradox35:42: The evolution of lightbulb technology; prehistoric technology without innovation38:12: Which environmental issues are being neglected?42:14: Invasive species as a driver of biodiversity loss45:32: Is deforestation the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic?48:27: Is there a link between environmental alarmism and theories of Covid-19 origins?Visit www.case4conservation.com

Most people outside Africa probably don't associate trophy hunting with conservation. In fact, certain publicized incidents of trophy hunting have caused something of a global moral panic. The same often goes for the culling of animal populations to manage their numbers and the trade in ivory, even ivory harvested from elephants that die naturally. In today's discussion we get into these perceptions, and my guest explains why they may be misguided. Lochran Traill is a lecturer at the University of Leeds. He is a conservation biologist and, having grown up in Zimbabwe, specializes in African ecology and conservation. Among the many topics he has researched and published on in top journals, is the afore-mentioned trophy hunting. Our discussion focuses on, but is not limited to, his most recent paper, on divergent views on trophy hunting in Africa, especially between people in Africa, and people outside the continent.Links to resources:Divergent views on trophy hunting in Africa, and what this may mean for research and policy - A 2021 paper that Lochran's group published in Conservation LettersCampfire Association - A famous and long-lived community conservation initiative in ZimbabweCecil the Lion incident - Wikipedia entry about the hunting of a Lion in Hwange National ParkPredicting the evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting on a quantitative trait - a 2018 article in The Journal of Wildlife Management by Lochran and colleaguesTime stamps:... coming soonVisit www.case4conservation.com

In 1975, biologist Paul Ehrlich said that 90% of tropical rainforests would be lost by about 2005. Although their loss has continued at a steady rate, by 2019 the figure was more like 32%. Also in the 1970s, ecologist Kenneth Watt forecast a world 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. Of course, it's been well publicized that the trend is in the opposite direction, and at a less severe pace. At a more modest scale, botanist John Acocks predicted in the 1950s that South Africa's Karoo (a desert-like area the size of present-day Germany) would expand into neighboring ecosystems, amounting to the desertification of millions of hectares of the country. As you'll hear in today's discussion, the Karoo in fact appears to have decreased in size. There are plenty of other examples of predictions of environmental change proving to be completely wrong. Perhaps those making the predictions didn't spend enough time looking into the past in order to forecast the future; and perhaps they didn't consult a diverse enough pool of expertise to inform their predictions.Timm Hoffman is a professor of plant conservation at the University of Cape Town (UCT) who, for decades, has used a variety of techniques to understand changes in biodiversity and landscapes. I have long admired Timm for the humility with which he approaches this subject. We talk about the methods he uses, especially repeat photography, and about the role of community engagement. And Timm argues that an interdisciplinary approach to ecology and conservation is likely to give us the best idea of what is going on. This episode is focused on southern Africa, but I'm sure you'll find the lessons universally applicable.Links to resources:Before the Beginning: Cosmology Explained - Book on scientific thinking by UCT emeritus professor, George Ellis, which was an early inspiration for Timm.Plant Conservation Unit - The Institute that Timms heads at the University of Cape Town Re-thinking catastrophe? Historical trajectories and modelled future vegetation change in southern Africa - Paper Timm co-authored in the journal, Anthropocene, which found that evidence of the projections for the climate and vegetation of the subcontinent is so far inaccurate. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies - The institute co-founded by Timm's collaborator, Ben Cousins, which "does research, policy engagement, teaching and training about the dynamics of chronic poverty and structural inequality in Southern Africa.Time stamps:02:35: Are conservationists too confident in their assumptions about environmental change?04:40: Timm's experiences that have informed his points of view including the influence of disciplines and people outside of conservation19:04: How do communities feel about researchers?24:10: Community photo project25:38: What is repeat photography?32:20: How to define degradation or improvement in the landscape43:41: How communities help to fill knowledge gaps45:47: Loss of traditional knowledgeVisit www.case4conservation.com

Renewable energy is one of the great hopes of humankind when it comes to addressing the threat of climate change and some forms of pollution. Thanks to technological advances it's now become cost-effective enough to compete with non-renewable energy sources. As renewable energy technologies and efficiency continue improving, and new innovations emerge, it's hoped that we can make clean energy ubiquitous. But, as Thomas Sowell said, "there are no solutions - only trade-offs". The harm done by energy generation is not just about the gasses emitted during the generation process. It's also about where renewable energy infrastructure is located; the materials that are mined and transported to build energy infrastructure; the batteries to store energy from non-baseload sources; the waste produced when energy infrastructure needs to be renewed; and, of most relevance to today's discussion, the relative impacts of different forms of energy production on biodiversity.Alexandros Gasparatos is Associate Professor of Sustainability Science at the Institute for Future Initiatives at the University of Tokyo; and Adjunct Associate Professor at the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, also in Tokyo. He is an ecological economist interested in, among many other things, renewable energy and energy policy. In my conversation with him he makes clear above all, I think, that the relationship between energy production (from both renewable and non-renewable sources) and biodiversity is highly complex and what constitutes best solutions can be context-dependent. Time stamps:2:13   Different energy production "pathways" 3:50   What is bioenergy?6:39   How gaps in the literature inspired Alexandros to explore this area of conservation13:48   How different forms of energy production differ in terms of their impact on nature20:15   The difficulty in comparing different forms of energy production25:02   Scale mismatches, and local versus global impacts30:45   Other factors to consider, like energy security32:44   Configuration choice and other ways of reducing impact38:00   Trade-offs and context42:18   Working with stakeholdersVisit www.case4conservation.com

It's widely agreed that one of our greatest global environmental challenges is the impact of fisheries on the oceans. Aquaculture, practiced at a small scale around the world and especially in Asia for centuries, emerged decades ago as a potential solution. But it soon became clear that aquaculture was using more wild-caught fish as feed (as an input), than it was generating as product. In other words, it was making the situation even worse. However, things have changed in the way that we manage this final frontier of agricultural intensification. And this story is not all about the ocean. Mariculture - marine aquaculture - supplies more than 50% of the world's seafood, but the freshwater aquaculture is even larger than the mariculture industry. Aquaculture is a big deal.I spoke about this subject with economist Roz Naylor, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University's Center for Food Security and the Environment. She led a seminal review to examine the "Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies", which was published in the journal, Nature, in 2000. Twenty years later she led the publication of "A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture", again in Nature. Both papers took an exhaustive look at all the literature available at the time, to piece together comprehensive narratives that outlined the pros and cons; the advances and obstacles of one of humankind's most important and promising food systems, and its impact on the environment.Time stamps:2:10   What is aquaculture - what does it include?2:57   Where is most aquaculture happening?5:30   The many species used in aquaculture and how they are used.10:16  Roz's interest in aquaculture, as an economist.12:25  How aquaculture became more sustainable, and related trade-offs20:58   Technology that has improved aquacultural production and sustainability27:53   Aquaculture species' energy conversion efficiency29:33   The potential and limitations of "extractive species"34:57   Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture37:32   Future promise of aquacultureVisit www.case4conservation.com

Freshwater biodiversity tends to be the most threatened of all types of biodiversity. In this episode I speak with Jenny Day about the state of freshwater biodiversity in South Africa's drought-prone Southwestern Cape, and elsewhere in the world. We get into how it coexists with humankind's need for water.Jenny is emeritus professor of freshwater ecology at the University of Cape Town, where she was also Director of the Freshwater Research Unit for many years. She has co-authored the book Vanishing Waters and, more recently, Freshwater Life: A field guide to the plants and animals of southern Africa, as well as numerous papers and research reports on various aspects of river and wetland ecology.Time stamps:01:30: Why Jenny decided on career in freshwater ecology04:40: Why freshwater ecologists end up being involved in management and policy11:20: The state of freshwater biodiversity15:36: Threats to freshwater biodiversity18:15: Water needs of communities, and dealing with Cape Town's two-year drought28:00: Invasive trees31:20: Virtual water35:05: Adapting agriculture to be water-smartVisit www.case4conservation.com

Much has been written about why we wish to protect nature. The initial motivation for conservation was ostensibly for nature's own sake. Around the 1980s, the concept of ecosystem services began to highlight  ways in which we depend on nature, as a motivation for conservation. Ecosystem services and similar concepts now dominate the discourse. But do they adequately describe our relationship with nature?Sharachchandra Lele (or Sharad, for short) is Distinguished Fellow in Environmental Policy & Governance at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & the Environment (ATREE) in Bangalore. After starting his career as an engineer, he went on to earn a PhD in Energy & Resources at UC Berkeley. Since then he has held positions as Senior Research Associate at the Pacific Institute, and fellowships or visiting fellowships at Harvard, Stanford and Cambridge Universities.Resources (linked):Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems - Seminal 1997 book edited by Gretchen Daily, to which Sharad refers in the discussion. He asked me to point out that he had mistakenly said this was by Daily and Paul Ehrlich. In fact, it builds on some earlier work by Ehrlich and others, but Ehrlich was not an author. The book focuses mostly on ecosystems' regulatory services.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Key assessment of "the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being" conducted from 2001 to 2005 and involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide.Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? - A key 2010 article in Bioscience, brought up by Sharad in our discussion.Environment and well-being: A Perspective from the Global South - A recent opinion piece that Sharad published in New Left Review, which lays out many of his views in detail.From wildlife-ism to ecosystem-service-ism to a broader environmentalism - A 2021 summary of Sharad's thoughts on ecosystem services, this time in a peer-reviewed journal.Time stamps02:46: Sharad's career change, from engineering to conservation and related topics 07:37: The nuanced and complex history of ecosystem services concepts16:26: Trade-offs between ecosystem services; ecosystem disservices23:21: How does biodiversity fit into a framework for viewing our relationship with nature?30:15: Why are human development indicators improving while environmental indicators worsen?37:40: What should be our motivation for conserving nature?48:02: Are generic frameworks really useful to describe our relationship with nature? Visit www.case4conservation.com

People from various walks of life have an affinity to nature. Why is that, and why is nature important to us? This episode is less of an inquiry and more of a ramble through this topic, with one of the most nature-loving, inspiring and interesting people I know. Steven Lowe is is a high school science teacher in the UK. But he started as a cardiovascular cell biology researcher, after earning his PhD in that subject. In between those two sub-careers he spent more than 10 years studying and working in conservation biology - mostly in South Africa - where we met doing our Masters degrees in that subject. 02:12: How Steve chose a successful career in cardiovascular cell biology, and left it for conservation11:11: The importance of biodiversity conservation relative to climate change action16:08: Moral and practical arguments for conservation18:03: Trade-offs, consequences and opportunities25:46: Political conviction about improving conservation28:39: Why are YouTube "freak animal clips" so popular?31:48: Young people's interest in nature35:23: The influence of inspiring individuals 40:36: The influence of spending time in natureVisit www.case4conservation.com

Why has environmentalism  come to be considered a left-wing  agenda, even though much of its history has conservative roots? And what does it even mean to be conservative when it comes to conservation and environmental issues?Quill Robinson has some ideas about this. He is Vice President of Government Affairs for the American Conservation Coalition, and spends much of his time in Congress advocating for what he considers pragmatic, bipartisan policy solutions to environmental challenges. He turned conservative after witnessing the defeat of one such policy solution by progressive organizations early in his career.02:18: How Quill changed political perspectives early in his career09:04: What it means to be a conservative in the environmental sphere12:15: Why is environmentalism thought of as a leftist agenda?16:06: Why market-based approaches?21:23: Incremental change versus transformative change26:50: Unleashing innovation32:27: The importance of local solutions and feeling like we can make a difference35:33: The argument against environmental catastrophism38:20: A culture shift towards steadfastness against adversityVisit www.case4conservation.com

Most conservationists are motivated by the purpose of their work. But that work often involves a lot of struggle and it can be daunting, especially when one does not yet have the experience of hard-won success to draw inspiration from. So, how do we keep going when the odds seem stacked against us?Grant Pearsell and Widar Narvelo both recently retired from decades-long, pioneering careers in urban conservation - Widar at the City of Helsingborg in Sweden and Grant at the City of Edmonton in Canada. In this discussion they share some of the wisdom and experience they have gathered over their lifelong work. 1:33: How Widar and Grant chose careers in conservation6:15: Conservation goals compared with broader institutional goals12:53: Most difficult career challenges17:16: Ecosystem services as a tool, or not19:04: Most rewarding career achievements24:27: Changes in public and institutional attitude over time26:11: Importance of integration into broader planning28:04: Communicating conservation with non-conservation language31:11: Advice to conservationists who feel they are struggling against the oddsVisit www.case4conservation.com

There is a lot in the media these days about how protecting biodiversity reduces the risk of zoonotic disease spillover, and hence the risk of epidemics and pandemics. There seems to be  a lot of good evidence for this in published studies on the topic, but how universal is such a conclusion? What is the science behind it? What about context? Are there exceptions to the rule? Dan Salkeld is a disease ecologist, and professor at Colorado State University. He has been addressing this topic in the literature for years, and shares some of his conclusions with us. We also talk a little more broadly about the trend, in the literature, towards making generic causal links, when the sum of the data show correlations of varying strength, and include exceptions.03:10: Main factors likely to increase the risk of zoonotic disease spillover05:08: Relationship between biodiversity and spillover risk; the dilution effect and amplification effect12:32: The role of scale in spillover13:55: The state of the debate regarding the links between biodiversity and spillover18:18: Claims of causation and consensus22:34: Results that don't get published26:09: Communicating nuanced messages to the broader publicVisit www.case4conservation.com

The scientific method remains the best systematic approach we have been able to develop in our ongoing endeavor to advance human flourishing. But that does not mean it's perfect - indeed, it probably never will be. But what are the ways in which we can make science better? Perhaps some of the most fundamental ways lie in the process of publishing research findings. This applies to biodiversity science as much as it does to other scientific disciplines. Randy Schekman joins me to pick apart some of the well-known and less well-known critiques of the scientific publication process, including the role of hype. Randy is a cell biologist, Nobel Prize winner, and previous editor-in-chief of PNAS, Annual Review of Cell Developmental Biology, and eLife. He is based at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has spent almost his entire career.01:57:  How biodiversity got Randy interested in science07:37:  How and why we publish scientific research11:50:  Domination by commercial journals17:22:  The introduction of impact factor, and its flaws21:12:  Professional editors and other problems with "luxury journals" 26:59:  The pressure to publish in big journals, and its societal implications28:11:  The problem with not publishing negative results34:41:  What's changed since Randy began his crusade in 2013?38:03:  What can we do about it?43:30:  What's the alternative to impact factor?Visit www.case4conservation.com

These days some very impressive-sounding conservation projects are catching the public eye, from massive tree-planting initiatives to high-profile urban greening. They capture the headlines and they capture the imagination. But do they deserve the level of attention and adulation that they receive? Or should we be a little more discerning as conservationists and the public, and pay a little more attention to the details?Someone who has looked into these questions is Adam Welz. He is a writer, photographer, filmmaker and self-proclaimed conservation theorist with an uncompromising approach to conservation.04:25: What does it mean to be a conservation theorist?10:50: Overview of the concept of "huge tree planting projects".21:30: What is performative conservation?25:19: New York City High Line Park.30:10: Is performative conservation sometimes done with good intentions?35:10: Cheonggyecheon stream restoration project and Saemangeum wetlands.38:55: Prioritizing resources for the most important conservation.41:08: Ecological illiteracy prevents us from identifying mistakes in conservation.46:27: The important, and lack, of nuance in understanding conservation problems.Visit www.case4conservation.com

Protected areas like nature reserves and national parks are about the most fundamental manifestation of nature conservation there is, and have existed in various forms for centuries. But are they achieving what they are meant to achieve? Does formal protection necessarily translate into biodiversity conserved?Brian MacSharry is well placed to respond to these questions. He is Head of the Biodiversity and Nature Group at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, and former lead of the Protected Planet initiative.We refer to the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) several times. The CBD is the United Nations convention that sets much of the international biodiversity agenda. Parties (countries and the EU) to the CBD make key decisions at meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COPs) to the CBD. We refer to COP-10 in Nagoya (2010); COP 14 in Sharm El Sheikh (2018); and the upcoming COP 15 in Kunming. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are a set of global targets that emerged from COP-10 as part of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which will be superseded by the post-2020 global biodiversity framework at COP-15.09:28: What constitutes a protected area?15:52: How much of the planet is protected? 15:52: Usefulness of the protected areas concept without an international standard to guide it26:12: Are protected areas protecting biodiversity where it most needs protecting?36:07: Difference between protected areas and "other effective conservation measures" (OECMs)43:28: Differences between terrestrial and marine protected areas49:54: Impact of protected areas on communitiesVisit www.case4conservation.com

Many Western nations have been undergoing a period of intense reflection on issues of discrimination. Recent incidents have re-ignited social movements like Black Lives Matter. Public intellectuals are addressing the topic with a variety of opinions - often confined to their own echo chambers. Are all concerns about discrimination justified? Are people too easily assuming that discrimination is the reason for injustice? And... what on Earth does any of this have to do with conservation?Gillian Burke tackles this topic with me. Gillian is a biologist by training, and her career has been mostly with the BBC Natural History Unit in a variety of roles including researcher, producer and director. Most recently, she made the transition to being a TV presenter, for popular British TV programs like "Springwatch".Visit www.case4conservation.com

Indigenous peoples and local communities are increasingly recognized for the importance of their contribution to global biodiversity knowledge. But is indigenous & local knowledge (ILK) being vetted, in a parallel to peer review's vetting of scientific knowledge? And how does ILK add to global biodiversity knowledge, if it is typically very localized? Zsolt Molnár helps me to explore these questions. Zsolt is a botanist and ethnoecologist at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and head of the research group on Traditional Ecological Knowledge at the Academy's Centre For Ecological Research.Links to resources can be found at www.case4conservation.com Visit www.case4conservation.com