One of the most popular terms in conservation these days is “nature-based solutions” (NbS). The concept is centered around the various ways in which conservation (including restoration and sustainable use) can benefit society, economy and environment. NbS are alternatives to engineered solutions to these problems, which benefit people as well as nature. Sounds straightforward, and the concept has been taken up in government policy and largely embraced by conservation science. And yet it has been somewhat divisive, for very different reasons.

Joy Ommer is scientific lead at KAJO, a Slovakia-based geoservices consultancy focused on disaster risk reduction and management. In a recent paper she and some project partners write about the importance of understanding the impacts of nature-based solutions before they are actually implemented. We discussed this and other issues around the NbS concept.

Links to Resources

• Quantifying co-benefits and disbenefits of Nature-based Solutions targeting Disaster Risk Reduction - 2022 article in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction by Joy and co-authors, which we refer to in our discussion
• Nature-based solutions: using the power of nature - Some examples of NbS on an IUCN webpage

Visit www.case4conservation.com

The term "precision agriculture" has high-tech and “big ag.” connotations, and is usually not associated with biodiversity. But there is a strong argument to be made that it is one of the best things that has happened to conservation in recent decades. Agriculture remains the biggest driver of biodiversity loss in most parts of the world, so anything that reduces its impact might be worth taking note of.

Mark McConnell, an assistant professor at Mississippi State University, joins us on this episode to explain why precision agriculture is a boon for conservation. We also talk about the accompanying concept of precision conservation, which he has been promoting, as well as the old “land sharing versus land sparing” debate. For listeners unfamiliar with that debate, check the podcast notes for a couple of key references, as well as some of Mark’s work.

Links to resources:

• What conservationists need to know about farming - early (2012) paper by Balmford and co-authors on the land sharing versus land sparing debate
• Precision Conservation to Enhance Wildlife Benefits in Agricultural Landscapes - 2017 book chapter by Mark and a co-author
• Gamebird University - Mark's podcast

Visit www.case4conservation.com

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 resources

• Understanding 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 resources

• Fads, 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 resources

• Nature Restoration Law - Outline of the law on the website of the European Commission

Visit www.case4conservation.com

From time to time certain concepts rise to prominence in biodiversity conservation circles, and some of these follow in the footsteps of climate change analogs. One such concept is biodiversity credits. Biodiversity credits are a mechanism that allow for biodiversity conservation or restoration activities to derive a revenue stream through the production and sale of a quantifiable unit of improvement in biodiversity. Despite the technical and philosophical challenges involved in trading in biodiversity credits, or even defining a single unit, biodiversity credits are being used to offset damages to biodiversity. And given the explosion of private and public interest in biodiversity credits, they are worthy of further exploration. 

Helping us to explore them is Harrison Carter, an interdisciplinary conservation scientist at the University of Oxford’s Biology Department. Harrison has studied biodiversity credits in detail and shares his personal views on this complex topic. This is a fairly technical conversation, but non-conservationists should still find it interesting, and it gets easier as it goes along. We talk about the good and the bad around biodiversity credits, starting with a broad description of the concept. 

Links to resources:

• What is a unit of nature? A webpage from the University of Oxford's Department of Biology about biodiversity credits including Harrison's work
• What is a unit of nature? Measurement challenges in the emerging biodiversity credit market - 2024 paper in the peer-reviewed jouirnal, PLOS ONE

Visit www.case4conservation.com

Half a century ago a group of more than 2,000 scientists signed a warning of environmental crisis and nuclear war. Named after the French town where it was compiled, the “Menton Message” turned out to be somewhat hyperbolic in its environmental predictions, and did not account for some of humankind’s remarkable developmental progress over the following decades. However, some of its concerns certainly remain prescient today. And so another, smaller, group of scientists convened, on the 50-year anniversary of the Menton Message, to revisit and modernize some of its assertions. The resulting document is “A letter to fellow citizens of Earth”, which was also summarized in an article for the journal “Nature”. It makes three key points:

• “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 resources

• The 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 others
• Fifty 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