There is a global biodiversity funding gap, and rapid efforts to mobilise private funding to fill this gap. Attempts to commodify biodiversity to create markets and harness return-seeking investment into conservation have now been practiced for half a century. What have we learned about how or whether private finance can become part of the solution, rather than a systemic driver, of biodiversity loss? In this talk I’ll give a tour of a few biodiversity markets we’ve studied in England and Australia and highlight what we’ve learned about how to make nature-markets work for nature.
Output association: LCNR supported
Interactions between multiple global change stressors are a defining characteristic of the Anthropocene. Tree-associated pathogens are affecting forested ecosystems worldwide and occur in the context of increased frequency and intensity of extreme climate events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. The effects of these events, along with subsequent changes in environmental conditions, on remaining and regenerating trees, are not well understood but crucial for the restoration and conservation of forested habitats.
Tom Oliver argues that our current fixes for the environmental crisis are often ineffective and even make things worse. Genuine solutions need to go beyond economic and technological ‘sticking plasters’ and require inner change.
Professor. Brian Enquist. University of Arizona
Developing a predictive science of the Biosphere and more powerful tests of biodiversity theories need to move beyond species richness, data driven approaches, and overly parameterized models to explicitly focus on mechanisms generating diversity via size and trait composition. The rise of scaling based theory and trait-based ecology has led to an increased focus on the distribution and dynamics of traits across broad geographic and climatic gradients and how these distributions influence ecosystem function. In this talk I will present a synthesis of trait-based and metabolic scaling approaches into a framework that we term ‘Trait Driver Theory’ or TDT.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Nattergal Report on Engagement Best Practice for Landscape-scale Nature Recovery Projects. Developed for our Boothby Wildland Landscape Recovery project, and funded by DEFRA, the report was led by the Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) at the University of Gloucestershire and the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and Agile Initiative projects at Oxford University, with the objective of establishing a framework for enhancing and embedding stakeholder engagement
The Nattergal Report on Engagement Best Practice for Landscape-scale Nature Recovery Projects. Developed for our Boothby Wildland Landscape Recovery project, and funded by DEFRA, the report was led by the Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) at the University of Gloucestershire and the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and Agile Initiative projects at Oxford University, with the objective of establishing a framework for enhancing and embedding stakeholder engagement
Projected climate futures force us to rethink the way we approach nature. The concept of conservation breaks down as we are forced to consider a changing ecology, with new assemblages of species, and a shift from a relatively steady state to dynamic, continuous change. Our goal becomes the preservation of functioning natural systems, supporting the survival of species rather than the preservation of particular ecosystem types.
To what extent does this really change the way we manage nature in and around Oxfordshire? Humans have extensively modified the countryside, and crops, improved pastures and urban development have fragmented the landscape. In order to improve outcomes for nature, we have only a few simple options…
Overstating wild animal roles in carbon capture may hinder, rather than facilitate, effective climate-mitigation and conservation efforts.
The two greatest environmental challenges of our time are global climate change and biodiversity loss, and it is attractive to look for synergies that can address both these challenges. This has generated support for nature-based solutions to climate change which, until recently, have largely focused on vegetation restoration and tree planting. However, there are increasing news stories circulating on how conserving and restoring large animal wildlife, such as elephants and whales, can absorb carbon and bring climate change mitigation benefits. This sounds very attractive: potential carbon could bolster much-needed funding for conservation and rewilding. What’s not to like?
In this opinion piece in Nature Climate Change we inject a voice of caution into this story. The science around wildlife providing climate benefits is generally weak and very context-dependent – in many cases animal wildlife like savanna elephants may reduce carbon stocks. Many widely reported studies are modelling studies which incompletely capture the many ecological processes at play – actual convincing field-based evidence is very rare – yet such studies get a disproportionate amount of media attention. We show there is very selecting media reporting of the minority of studies that suggest climate benefits of animal wildlife. There is a real danger that claimed climate benefits may not exist, leading to backlash and discrediting of otherwise creditable conservation and rewilding schemes when paid-for carbon benefits do not emerge. Many vibrant ecosystems such as savannas and grasslands can have lower carbon stocks than similar ecologically degraded ecosystems. And excessive focus on carbon can encourage bioperverse outcomes, such as reducing animal wildlife abundance where it is seen to negatively impact carbon stocks. There are both practical and moral dangers around excessive “carbonization” of wildlife that we need to be alert to.
Biodiversity is rising rapidly on the global agenda, prompting businesses to adopt the “nature-positive” framing, expressing a commitment to combat biodiversity loss and contribute to global nature recovery goals. However, realizing these ambitions requires transformative changes in business operations, which will be challenging given the uncertainties surrounding possible strategies and pathways. A research-driven approach for business action on biodiversity is vital to prevent unintended environmental and social consequences, but there is currently no coordinated research effort on this topic. Here, we present our vision of a conceptual framework for nature positive extending beyond individual business actions, encompassing processes that influence business involvement, a spectrum of sectoral strategies, and the need for impact measurement at various scales. We utilize this framework to propose high-priority research questions where we believe collaboration between researchers, consultants, and sustainability practitioners is needed to guide effective, feasible, and equitable action to protect and restore nature.