Agriculture has been by far the biggest driver of land change and land degradation worldwide. And yet, it is also fundamental to the very existence of humankind. This mismatch often comes up in public discourse. Over the past year or two, for example, several European countries have seen extensive farmer protests - against rising costs and restrictive environmental regulations, among other things. Environmental groups have responded to the farmers’ appeals mostly with indignation… and yet farmers and environmentalists have a lot in common - at east potentially.

Philippe Birker is co-founder of “Climate Farmers”, and his work is aimed mostly at promoting regenerative agriculture. He and I cover a range of topics in the discussion that follows, from the farmer protests to the relationship between agrochemical companies and government. Along the way, there were several “rabbit holes” that we could have gone down, and several points that I would have liked to challenge Philippe on in greater depth. But, with limited available time, I needed to bookmark most of these for another time and for future guests.

Visit www.case4conservation.com

Insects are among the most abundant organisms on Earth. About 350,000 beetle species, alone, have been described by science and this is considered to be only a fraction of their total number. In a variety of ways, insects are a fundamental part of natural and human-adapted systems. While some cause disease or ruin crops, others play a key role in ecosystem service provision, for example by pollinating certain crops or as food for other beneficial animals and people. Overall, the loss of insect species is a major concern. Some of the more exuberant headlines broadcasting this message have gone so far as to declare an imminent “insectageddon”. However, although many insect species are declining or in danger of decline, there is reason to be wary of such excessive claims. Data need to be carefully considered, revealing the complex patterns of change. Unfortunately the media, in particular, is often incentivized to focus on the more extreme findings and neglect the nuances.

Jane Hill (OBE) is president of the Royal Entomological Society and a professor at the University of York. She helps me to pick apart the "insectageddon" idea, including how valid it is and how it came about in the first place.

Links to Resources

• How worried should we really be about "insectageddon"? - 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 resources

• Anthropocene: 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 resources

• Stealth 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 resources

• Has 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 resources

• UK 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 resources

• The 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