Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Climate Change & Biodiversity Conservation · Acedra
Home
Explore
Biology
Climate Change & Biodiversity Conservation
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
264 segments
Copy
Hide video
1:26
Rene Romo : Good evening and welcome to The New Mexico State University Climate Chance Education Seminar Series. My name is Rene Romo and as a Field Representative of the Office of Senator Tom Udall, and an Aggie myself. It's been my distinct privilege to assist the fine faculty and staff at New Mexico State University in organizing this important and informative series over the course of three academic years.
1:51
For tonight's talk, we are honored to hear from Arizona State University ecologist, Dr. Leah Gerber, Director of the Center for bio diversity outcomes at ASU. Whose talk is titled Knowledge to Outcomes in Global Biodiversity Conservation. Dr Gerber was one of the lead authors of a landmark report issued in early 2019, by the IPBES, The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Systems Services.
2:21
The report, the most comprehensive assessment ever produced, sent a direct message to the global community. The effects of human activity, including climate change threaten the extinction of up to 1 million species of plants and animals around the world, what's been called the sixth mass extinction in earth's history.
2:39
Before we turn to Dr. Gruber. Let me mention that to find out about future talks in the NMSUCCESS series, which you can attend virtually visit our webpage sustainability.nmsu.edu/nmsuccess that you can also find recordings of past talks. If you are interested in supporting future talks and other sustainability efforts on campus. Please donate to the NMSU Sustainability Fund through the gift payroll program.
3:09
And if you have any questions during the talk that you'd like to provide our presenter, Dr Gerber, please send them via the Q&A portal at the bottom of your zoom screen and we'll do our best to get to as many questions as possible. Moderating the question and answer period tonight will be NMSU student Anna Wall, who's a senior majoring in environmental studies and a member of ESSO the Environmental Science Student Organization. And now, without further ado let's welcome Dr Gerber.
3:53
Leah Gerber: Good evening, everyone.
3:56
Can everyone see me?
4:00
Thumbs up? Frank & Rene: Yes Leah Gerber: Good. Okay. Well, thank you very much
4:07
for the invitation, and -- it's a delight to to be here, this evening and talk about knowledge to outcomes and global biodiversity conservation. Thank you all for joining. Thank you to Rene Romo and to the New Mexico State team for the invitation. And so my plan today is to talk about
4:33
my experience as a lead author, for the IPBES Intergovernmental Panel and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, to give you a state as a flavor for the state of global biodiversity and what is is being done to curb biodiversity loss on a global scale.
4:54
I'm going to first give you a little bit of an introduction to what I do and who I am and then I'll end with talking about the new frontiers and biodiversity science and how we bring the science to outcomes, in particular.
5:16
Okay, so I'm a professor at Arizona State University. I've been here almost 20 years and I run a lab called The Conservation Innovation Lab my training is primarily in marine ecology and conservation.
5:30
And after spending, you know, the first 15 or so years doing conservation science at publishing and in the good journals and thinking that science if I keep producing it, it's going to make its way to policy. I took a pause and thought, you know, there's something not happening here between the science that I'm producing and the outcomes that I am committed to
5:55
And so I started turned my research to also understanding what determines outcomes and biodiversity science and really making a concerted effort to
6:08
To bridge that divide
6:11
And the challenge really is that is Rene mentioned in this introduction, we are experiencing an unprecedented rate of extinction. That's 1000 times greater than historical
6:27
rates of extinction and this threatens our own livelihood, the sustainability of our planet, food security, clean water, our ability to adapt to climate change. Yet, biodiversity remains marginalized in policymaking in private sector trade offs and finance and so the the real ambition and motivation, that I have, is to address this question. How do we mainstream biodiversity conservation into global decision making and sustainable development?
7:03
And it's precisely that question that motivated me to establish a new center, which I call a boundary organization here at ASU. And the idea is to innovate in the field of conservation science and then to bridge the divide to bring that innovation to relevant sectors. For decision making and that that might be government NGO or the corporate sector and we take an approach an integrative of an integrated approach that
7:35
weaves together our research, with our partnerships, and our education programs.
7:43
Now we're doing this in a way that
7:47
We don't really know -- we're not really using an established model for
7:53
how we operate. So we decided to create a theory of change or what do we think, what, what are the principles for running a boundary organization, in which we're we're innovating and we're trying to make that innovation useful and relevant in the real world? So the outcomes that we strive to achieve include reducing the number of endangered species, globally.
8:20
Increasing the consideration of biodiversity in the private sector and developing a decision tools that better -- you -- allow and promote the use of science and decision making. We hypothesize that taking an evidence based approach and by partnering with practitioners. We will then establish easy and intuitive access to information, which ultimately leads to improve practice.
8:53
So these are just a few of our partners that we who we work with and
8:59
I really want to provide that context for where I'm coming from. Four years ago, I was invited to serve as a lead author for IPBES, and this is going to be the focus of my talk. But I want to talk specifically about not only the review and the assessment of what is the state of global biodiversity. But how, how is that relevant to global decision making and what what are the frontiers and the hurdles ahead of us in this post 2020
9:29
era that we're embarking upon
9:35
So I'm going to just bear with me here while I give you a quick overview
9:41
Or perhaps not so quick, an overview of the IPBES, as I mentioned, it's a tongue twister, Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. A very, very ambitious effort, a global assessment of the state of knowledge and the trends and interactions between nature and people and so biodiversity, the benefits to people and the historical trends. This includes all geographic areas ranging from land --water-- inland waters, coastal zones and oceans. The motivation for this
10:19
Is -- was to contribute to the strategic the convention of biological diversity strategic plan for biodiversity and also to provide input into the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
10:34
It was a very international and interdisciplinary group of authors approximately 150 authors and from a wide range of disciplines. Good gender diversity all uniform 50 different countries, we met over the course of three years and many interesting parts of the world and worked very hard.
11:00
And the key questions that we addressed. And this is a an image of some of the team at one of our meetings. In -- I think this one was in Frankfurt, Germany. We organized ourselves into sub teams to address the questions that I have listed here.
11:23
I remember when I was assigned the task of assessing the status and trends of nature and the indirect and direct drivers of change. I almost ran out of room because I mean, that is not a trivial trivial effort. So it really involved a large degree of sophisticated coordination and commitment to to do this. We also looked at how does nature contribute to that achievement of the global goals. I'll use global goals and Sustainable Development Goals interchangeably.
11:55
What are the plausible futures for nature and for a good quality of life until the years 2050? And what pathways and policy intervention scenarios can lead to a sustainable future. And then finally, what are the opportunities and challenges and options available for decision makers relating to nature and the good in a good quality of life. So this is what we sought to do.
12:23
Four years ago. And I'm going to, I'm going to tell you about what we learned. And then I'm going to tell you where we are now. Because we completed the global assessment at the end of last year.
12:35
So the upshot. The one sentence answer is that we're, we're not doing very well. Life on Earth is deteriorating -- deteriorating very fast across all indicators of the global state of nature. So we're not doing very well.
12:55
I think the upshot. And I'm going to dig into exactly how we're not doing well. The upshot is that it's not too late. And we learned about a lot of inefficiencies and
13:09
And ways that we can tackle this in a in a in a more strategic and effective way. So it is not too late. Although things are not are not looking very good.
13:21
So a little bit of doom and gloom and we are experiencing more extinctions now than any other time in human history. So this is the graph showing the cumulative number of species driven to extinction over time. And you see across a wide range and taxonomic group in in since the beginning of the 19th century, the slope of this
13:48
rate of extinction has increased. So we're seeing more extinctions.
13:53
Now than we have historically.
13:58
This is known as the on prophecy. So we're in this unprecedented geological era where we are humans responsible for this, this new phase of extinction.
14:10
I think one of the most important things that came out of the assessment is is not only the if you see that this, this figure is divided into both, you know, the indirect drivers and also the direct drivers.
14:26
People are pretty familiar with the direct, direct drivers, you know, land use change direct exploitation, climate change, pollution invasive species, etc. But what we don't often think about are the indirect drivers that are driven by our social values. And so one of the overarching premises and an outcomes that came from the global assessment is that to really tackle the --
14:56
The problem of biodiversity loss. We really need to get at these indirect drivers and not just be sort of putting a bandaid on on the direct drivers that emerge from these indirect drivers. So the indirect drivers have to do with trends and population growth and consumption patterns, especially here in the US.
15:18
Technology and economic development, including trade conflicts and social unrest institutions and governance. These are all --
15:32
-- underlying social challenges that we face that
15:38
have had led to a loss of biodiversity via these direct drivers. So the current incentive programs that we have for production and consumption are firm full to nature.
15:52
For example, direct and indirect subsidies for agriculture and fisheries, forestry, mining, energy,
16:03
subsidies for inefficient production, excessive waste, these things affect nature at different levels and they they can have impact on nature, ranging from genetic diversity to entire landscapes.
16:19
So I think this is this is a really important concept that I want to come back to you as I as I continue to to run through the results of the global assessment.
16:31
Okay, so our report contains a comprehensive analysis of the status and trends of 18 categories of what we call nature's contribution to people. So this is sort of a typology that we came up with to categorize the value of nature and you see that these things range from habitat creation and pollination to soil regulation,
17:00
learning and inspiration, etc. The main thing I want you to take away here is that of the 18 categories in the in this of nature's contribution to people, 14 of these have declined. And when you think about this, the ones that that have not energy, food, and materials.
17:24
Let's think about this since the 1970s, we produce more food, more energy, more raw materials than we've ever produced. Now this increase in production and the associated waste is undermining nature's capacity to regulate processes and regenerate itself. So this is not
17:45
This was not a very
17:49
Optimistic
17:51
Result.
17:54
And furthermore,
17:57
When we look at these results in the context of progress towards achieving specified international biodiversity and sustainability goals.
18:09
We have not fared very well. So before I step you through our progress towards meeting these goals. Let me briefly introduce you to. We have a set of
18:21
targets that Aichi Biodiversity Targets, this is -- these are specific targets related to what we hope to achieve in biodiversity conservation. We had a set of targets established for 2020 and now we've moved on to post 2020. So we're looking into 2030 or 2050. So this is under the Convention of Biological Diversity and these are one set of targets. There's another set of targets that you may be more familiar with.
18:53
And these are known as the Sustainability -- Sustainable Development Goals and you'll see that these range from, you know, poverty to hunger. Several of these relate directly to biodiversity, arguably, all of these depend on nature.
19:09
Some of them are much more specific. For example, life on land, life below water, climate action.
19:17
But these are a different set of goals that are known as the Sustainable Development Goals and there's quite a bit of synergy between the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, also known as the global goals.
19:35
Okay. So how have we done with -- with progress towards these goals?
19:43
So first let's look at our progress towards the it biodiversity targets. And as you see, we have organized these targets into categories of drivers, pressures, status, benefits, and implementation. And you'll see that partial progress has been observed in a minority of these for, for the most part
20:05
we have not progress towards these goals. Some are moderate in a few. We actually have made some progress, but it's notable that none of these four directly tackles the root causes of nature's decline or those indirect drivers. Um -- so, so this is a, you know, useful to look at where we have performed well and where we have not performed well in terms of reaching these these biodiversity targets.
20:36
The picture is similar regarding the UN Sustainable Development Goals. So if we look at a similar --
20:44
My lights just went off. Excuse me.
20:48
Alright. I'm back. If we look at similar topology for as you recall, I pointed out the most relevant sustainable development goals and we focused on the
21:06
selected sustainable development goals that are most relevant to nature.
21:12
And, these range from no poverty, hunger, climate, life below water, life on land.
21:19
And this is showing the status and trends and aspects of nature that support progress towards this target. And you can see that most are poor or declining
21:33
And as I mentioned, of the 35 targets that -- excuse me -- of the 44 targets that we assessed, 35 show and negative trend.
21:46
So in summary, I realized this is a lot of color and a lot of arrows and things like that. In summary, there's been some progress, but not enough to stem the direct drivers of nature's deterioration and especially its root causes those indirect drivers.
22:09
So,
22:11
What does all this mean?
22:15
The conclusion was very much, you know, the report was intended to be a reference document that primarily provides scientific evidence toward -- for reviewing the global state of biodiversity.
22:32
It is not intended -- it was not intended to be a policy document in itself, but the underlying synthesis chapter on options for decision makers
22:44
concluded that the challenges that we face in nature's deterioration or biodiversity loss, climate change, and our quality of life are all interconnected. And so we need to address these things synergistically, and what I mean by that is looking at local to global levels and thinking holistically about food, water, energy, health,
23:08
climate change, nature conservation, and human -- human well being in a way where we're not just looking at one of these separately. But we're looking at them all together, and looking at how can these priorities combined towards sustainable pathways?
23:26
Some of the key considerations that we identified in that pathway include; inclusion and participation in environmental governance and that means recognizing the knowledge innovations practices and values of indigenous people in local communities throughout the world. Biodiversity conservation can no longer be a discipline or a field for the elite Westerners. Nature values
23:58
many, many communities in the world value and benefit from nature. And we need to start embracing that plurality of values and in the way we make decisions.
24:11
Importantly of equal importance we also need to evolve our global financial and economic systems to build a more global sustainable economy, and one that does not depend on the current limited paradigm -- paradigm of economic growth. Where we're not paying the full cost of nature in our consumption patterns.
24:40
So I want to bring us to the present because we actually are now in discussions with the under the Convention of Biodiversity
24:53
Convention on Biological Diversity
24:56
They -- as I mentioned, many of the targets did not -- were not achieved. And so now the question is, what, what do we want to do for 2030 or 2050? What are the goals and how can we learn from our failures? Which is a strong term. But how can we construct sort of a knowledge system that actually functions?
25:21
And just to kind of step you through the process and highlight a couple of things that I think are really relevant.
25:28
This is a very complicated figure, but I want to highlight again, the things that I talked about. The threat reduction.
25:36
We need to attack -- tackle the indirect drivers of these threats.
25:44
And we need to develop approaches that are usable to do that and allow different sectors of society to actually monitor, measure, and report on progress towards mitigating these threats. So,
26:02
as we move towards the 2030 goals with a focus on conservation of, not just individual species but entire ecosystems. We, you know, the aspiration is that as we move along from 2030 to 2050 we -- our children and our grandchildren will experience healthy resilient ecosystems and species. And we also have a good quality of life as human beings. So these things are quite interconnected. So what,
26:36
what kind of science and
26:40
what are the challenges in getting there? And so I want to pivot to tell you about some of the the approaches that are underway and and also give you a little bit of a hint of some of the research that we're doing in this space to bring the science to global decision making in achieving these biodiversity outcomes. So we've been working with the IUCN,
27:04
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature. As I mentioned early on IUCN is one of our partners, here at the Center for Biodiversity Outcomes and really with IUCN leadership, Dr. Louise Mairs, specifically.
27:22
There is this new approach called the species threat -- and the -- The species threat abatement and restoration metric. In fact, Louis, gave a talk earlier this week. It should be posted on our website, our Center for Biodiversity Outcomes website shortly. If you'd like to catch that talk. The idea of this metric is that it allows
27:46
decision maker, make it -- maybe it's a country, maybe it's a corporation, but to actually measure what is the conservation game that could be achieved through an action?
28:00
And that action could be at a site, the landscape.
28:04
You know, a corporate footprint, or a country. And the idea is to really focus on mitigating the threats and also restoring lost habitat.
28:15
And so you may be familiar with
28:18
this the categories of risk under the IUCN and red list.
28:23
You know, it ranges from extinct, extinct in the wild, to threatened, and then we have this species of least concern. And the idea -- the rash -- the underlying assumption is that alleviating the threat, the given threat would halt population or decline in a particular distribution, such that the species could be down listed.
28:48
For example, from endangered to vulnerable, or at least concern.
28:53
So how do we put this into practice? And why is this useful or relevant?
28:57
The rationale is that, you know, one of the leading issues in terms of biodiversity conservation that I think is what is one of the sort of political reasons why or policy issues explanations, for why we have not achieved the goals, and that is that we are not funding biodiversity conservation. And these are some stark numbers that I'm going to share. Approximately $76 billion per year is needed to protect biodiversity.
29:31
This is about .01% of the GDP and we're grossly under funding this. An example in this range is the level of underfunding you know, is quite wide depending on the country. But even here in the US, we're only funding about 20% of what is needed. So if we look at listed species in the in the US
29:59
we and we -- we estimate how much from the recovery plans, looking at all the actions that need to be taken, how much would it cost to support all those actions to alleviate all those threats. It's 1.2 billion, but in actuality, we're only spending about 20%. So, no wonder we're not achieving our goals. We are stating these goals, but we're not funding them. The more compelling thing, and this is sort of intuitive, but this this very cool regression relationship.
30:33
Sort of makes it makes it a lot more concrete this this relationship shows the biodiversity decline with spending. And so what we're looking at here is across countries.
30:48
We if we're if we're spending more we see less of a decline.
30:53
Yeah, so for funding conservation actions. We're not going to see as much biodiversity, the client. So this paper was published a couple of years ago in Nature. And it's a very, very rigorous analysis global analysis of IUCN red list data.
31:10
You know, received a lot of attention, but --
31:15
But, then it was sort of what's next? And so we're we're working on picking up on this and taking this this very strong regression relationship and turning it into a predictive tool so that we can actually estimate. For a given level of investment in mitigating a threat or restoring a habitat. What do we expect to see? And we hope that that will be -- allow us to bring the science to the outcomes. Because we can actually quantify for, say, a country,
31:46
or a company. What someone is actually doing to protect biodiversity or mitigate minimize biodiversity loss.
31:57
So, to be more specific about that.
32:02
This is a concept that we actually are working in Latin America, Peru and Colombia, and this is a concept that will be putting into practice with a new project in in Peru. Where we're taking this return on investment approach to report contributions towards the Sustainable Development Goals. So we have this threatened landscape. We have a limited pot of money for conservation interventions.
32:34
We don't really know what to do. We don't know which action to take. You know, one action might need to avoid conservation benefit, another might be to achieve high conservation benefit. Those are two different strategies, but we have data and evidence and scientific information to consider the relative
32:58
impact of these alternative actions, given a particular budgetary constraints. So the idea is that we can package this information in ways that decision makers can then deliberate and identify investment choices based on return of investment. And similarly with the STAR metric
33:18
the idea is that an individual country, or a company can actually take the STAR metric and report on exactly what is being done to mitigate biodiversity loss because at present, there is very little incentive to -- even a system in place to report on what is being done to mitigate mitigate this loss. So, to be more specific about the corporate sector.
33:51
The private sector, and this is a review that some of my students led a few years ago, one day, this may be published will see. Private sector sustainability reports suggest that biodiversity is a priority. So, if we review from this review of all of these sustainability reports biodiversity ecosystem services and natural capital are mentioned.
34:16
You know, five, ten times, but they're just mentioned. There's no action -- there's no -- and why is there no action? There's no incentive for action. There's no system or approach, for reporting on those actions. And I do think that the private sector is going to have to play an increasingly strong role, leadership role in curbing this biodiversity loss.
34:40
So, in terms of why companies should care. I think they are starting to realize in through my interactions with various consortiums of private companies and even working with private companies themselves. There is a broad range of attributes or categories in which companies can actually care about biodiversity and these include; regulation, and policy. So reporting compliance with, say, the Endangered Species Act.
35:11
Operational risk and inefficiencies, also access to finance, stakeholder relations, and market.
35:22
You know, an increasing consumer demand for sustainable products. So I think this is really where the change is going to need to happen, in the private sector. And that's why I'm really excited about these approaches that we're developing in collaboration with the IUCN where we're integrating this threat assessment with return on investment assessment to really get at, how can we bring the best available innovation in science to solve these global challenges?
35:52
So I want to pontificate and coming to the end of my talk now, and I want to pontificate a little bit about this process of knowledge to outcomes. I introduced myself, and, you know, told you that I've been a professor for 20 years you know it published hundred -- over 100 papers and done all the things that I'm supposed to do as a conservation scientist.
36:13
But really, I think, a lot more than doing good science is needed to bring the science to outcomes. And we really do have this strong disconnect between the science and the knowledge, and the
36:29
stakeholder decision making. So often the knowledge that we are generating in the scientific communities is not relevant. I remember a conversation, you know, after having years of research on a particular topic and presenting it to the stakeholder and you know the stakeholders saying something like, "Well, you're answering a question that I don't have." And that was very humbling. So I'm very supportive of the process of
36:57
coproduction in -- in these in both the science to the outcomes. I think that this offers an opportunity for really thinking about new institutional models for how we create partnerships to create these practical outcomes in conservation science.
37:18
And a few kind of observations from my experience that some of which I touched on is that, you know, again, providing facts and data is just not enough. I think you know 20 years ago I may have thought that was the case. But it's not. It's very important to understand the institutional landscape and the leavers of policy change.
37:39
and -- um -- I think patience is important because cultivating and maintaining relationships, such that when the timing is right. You could introduce the science is very important. The timing for producing science may not align with the decision making time timing. So holding a seat at the table and being able to communicate the science to a diversity of stakeholders is really important.
38:06
So I wanted to sort of present this concept -- conceptual diagram for us to sort of look at which is
38:15
actually it's a figure in a paper, that'll be coming out in Conservation in Practice soon, and this is really studying what are the best practices for individuals and organizations to conduct science that actually has impact? So the idea here. Is we have our, you know, best practices for organizations, and best practices for
38:40
researchers and these, you know, they're not they're not earth shattering, but I think we really need to embrace these. We need to incentivize actionable science and at present, we're not really doing it very well in many universities and we also need to provide resources for early career scientists.
39:00
For individuals co production I think we have to begin with the end user and defining a shaping the problem.
39:09
Really really listening and understanding where the stakeholders are coming from and developing the, the approach and the solution. Building this trusting relationships and keeping that seat at the table over maybe decades really until the there's an opportunity to bring the science and then also being skilled in communication.
39:31
So the idea is that by doing this we will have knowledge that is adopted, and we may be more efficient in achieving our outcomes and that the knowledge is more sustainably used. So, that is the again sort of revisiting my theory of change what we expect to see
39:52
And the hope again you know we we are in this unprecedented era. The Anthropocene were really there is no very, very few. There are very few places that are untouched, arguably, there's no place on the planet that's untouched. We're seeing this mass extinction. It's, it's very easy to sort of throw up our hands and say, you know, too bad, we did that.
40:16
And I would argue that there's still a chance. There's still an opportunity to turn this around, we have we have capacity we have energetic students and scholars and commitment to really reverse this trajectory. So that's what what I'm most excited about.
40:36
And with that, I, you know, very much welcome comments or questions I have included my email here and my Twitter handle. So thank you very much.
41:00
Rene Romo: Thank you, Dr Gerber
41:03
So we're going to go to a question and answer period. Now, as mentioned before. If you have any questions you'd like to present
41:12
send them to us through the Q&A portal that you'll see at the bottom of your screen and moderating questions will be Anna Wall NMSU student and you're you could unmute yourself so you could present these questions and
41:28
we'll, we'll take a few questions.
41:31
Anna Wall: Sounds good. All right, everybody, my name is Anna. As mentioned before, I'm a student at Mexico State and I am honored to be here today. So the first question that we have. This is from the audience. How do we change and influence public opinion to change attitudes and perspectives? Leah Gerber: Ooh, that is the million dollar question. I'm seeing that from from Nancy McMillan. Thank you.
41:56
You know,
41:58
How do we do it. I also in my
42:02
In my quest to change the approach that I'm taking to save the planet. I have initiated a training program for grad students in science leadership and communication. Because I think that, you know, being a good science scientist is really not enough. We also need to learn to lead in whatever capacity. That means, and we also need to communicate and in that communication needs to be really tailor to whichever audience, we're speaking with.
42:35
One of my grad students is very, very gifted at science communication and her words of wisdom are That she always tries to find some common ground before sort of saying, here's what I think is important might start with talking about you know your favorite pet or where you'd like to travel and find some common ground is a is a departure point to
42:59
getting your message out there.
43:04
Anna Wall: Wise advice, in my opinion.
43:06
Anna Wall: Very cool. So could you comment on the role that groups. Oh, actually, before I continue, these are not from Nancy. These are copied into our chat. I do not know whose they are actually. Leah Gerber: Oh, Ok. Thank you. Anna Wall: Um, but also, could you comment on the role that groups like Extinction Rebellion are playing in raising pop -- public consciousness around the biodiversity crisis.
43:29
Leah Gerber: Oh, there goes my light again. Here, let me --
43:33
Leah Gerber: I'm so sustainable that I -- am going talks in the dark here. Leah Gerber: I'm sorry about that. So, oh gosh, that's another really great question. To some extent I in my own experience, have been frustrated with very left wing groups that are not strongly science based that go, you know, take the embracing the emotion approach.
44:02
I have felt that at times, for example, with my work with International Whaling Condition that
44:10
the approaches that have been taken by some of these groups have undermined our collective goal of conservation.
44:20
That said, I feel like there are a lot of groups that are pro-development,
44:26
pro-economic growth, anti-environment. And so by the same vein, I feel like we need, we need a balance. And so there is a role in in in the U.S. there's also a legal process where the federal agencies
44:40
sort of -- they're required to respond to lawsuits and so if there aren't lawsuits will the action taken? So I think it's not my cup of tea. I, you know, in this spectrum of advocacy to science. I'm much more along the aligned with the science, but I think there is a strong role for those groups.
45:04
Anna Wall: So how do we change public behaviors so that there is less demand for private sector destructive products and not just a demand for very environmentally sustainable products. Sorry. Leah Gerber: Let me, let me, think about that. I'm going to read it to. How do we change.
45:26
Hmm. Yeah, that's something I'm thinking about a lot lately. So how do we change consumer behavior and consumer product, you know, choice.
45:37
And then, and then have that choice reflected in the entire supply chain, I think, you know, an example of this
45:46
is that many of us care about sustainable seafood and you know there are a lot of different,
45:55
tools -- seafood tracking --
45:59
certification schemes, for example, you may be familiar with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Certifications scheme. There's apps, there used to be little cards that people could carry in there wallets to decide about what seafood consumers could eat. So those things are promising, but what really I think the transformative change that is needed, there is
46:25
really starting to build in this the full value of nature or what I call natural capital into entire supply chains. From, you know, where the fishes harvested to where it's, you know, divide it up, and make makes its way to the markets and then makes its way to mark say you know Walmart that we're really, really capturing the full value of nature. And each of those nodes.
46:55
And I think what that requires is a deep dive, a really deep dive into inefficiencies and that supply chain, so that the consumer is not necessarily paying more for those products, but
47:11
is that, you know, the, the, we are not. We don't have inefficiencies, where the large fishing companies are reaping large profits, where the consumer pays pay significant
47:26
significantly more for the sustainable products.
47:33
Anna Wall: All right. Are there changes in the University tenure system that can encourage changes in faculty research that would align research with sustainable means? Anna Wall: How can we transition to paying the real price for resources such as bananas, and direct these funds towards conservation and biodiversity protection. Leah Gerber: Wow, okay, so I'm not seeing that question on my list, but that's okay. I'm going to try it. I might have to --
47:59
I don't know why it went away. I'm I may have to. So the -- those were sort of two questions. I'll tackle the first one, which is the tenure system and then you may have to say that banana one again.
48:13
Leah Gerber: Oh, here we go. I see it now. Are there changes in the University tenure system that can encourage changes and faculty, that would align research with sustainability. Yes, that is something that I'm working on a lot as well. There are a couple of different efforts. Like consortiums of academics, there's one group that is called Beyond The Academy and it's
48:37
a grant that a colleague at
48:43
I'm blanking on what University -- Minnesota. Her name is Bonnie Keeler. She got a grant from the National Academies and has had a series of workshops where she invited
48:55
faculty from many different universities approximately a dozen to address this exact issue of
49:02
how can sustainability
49:07
practice -- or how can we reform academia and in a way that we are supporting outcomes as opposed to the metric system that that many Universities currently use, which is papers, publications, and grants and out of that there are a number of efforts afoot that have to do with developing new metrics, new impact factors, that have to do with not just how many times were papers cited. But maybe how many retweets you get or how many public talks to give
49:45
and this may be less
49:48
numerical and less quantitative and more qualitative. It may, may include narratives of, you know, here's how I have my seat at the table, and it took 20 years to get to the outcome. But here's what I did, it's, it's pretty tricky, but I think
50:07
I think I remain optimistic and I think we're starting to train students in a different way, as well.
50:13
As I mentioned, you know, and not just doing good science, but also becoming leaders of change. So we're really I think we're going to be seeing a a transformation in in academia and in the reward system we use.
50:29
So that's that question and then the -- How can we transition to paying the real price for resources such as bananas and direct those funds to biodiversity conservation? Well, that's part of what I was talking about with the subsidies. The first thing we need to do is to really take a close look at the subsidies that we're using in agriculture and fisheries.
50:51
And you know, I think I'm always amazed by, you know, another example is why, why do we pay so little for water? We are literally in the desert. I don't get it. You know, why do we have these green grasses? It's because we're not paying the full price. And that's, you know, this concept of --
51:10
Another example is, we published a paper on plastic pollution recently where, you know, you may have seen some of the 52 million metric tons of plastic pollution are going to be you know the estimate in the next decade. That's how much we're going to be putting into the ocean. And that's because the
51:32
the, the petrochemical companies are subsidized to continue producing plastic. But then the plastic is making its way into the ocean in someone else's responsible for cleanup. So we need to remove the subsidies and we need need the companies to be accountable for the entire life cycle of the plastic.
51:52
Anna Wall: Cool. So, um, will Universities continue to promote only sustainability, or do they move up a notch to a regenerative approach to economy and ecology? Sorry.
52:07
Leah Gerber: I'm not sure I understand that question, and it's not popping up on my screen. Leah Gerber: Can you say that one again? Anna Wall: Yes, so will universities continue to promote only sustainability, or do they move up a notch to regenerative approach to economy and ecology?
52:21
Leah Gerber: Economy and ecology? Anna Wall: Yes.
52:33
Leah Gerber: I'm not really sure if I understand it. But I'll, I'll take a stab. Because I'm not really sure about what a regenerative approach is. But my answer is that we be both sustainability and we need economics and ecology and we need a lot more integration across those fields. For example, here at ASU. I'm in -- My faculty appointment is in the School of Life Sciences. The center that I run, Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, is part of our Global Institute of Sustainability.
53:05
And they're really kind of two different worlds, and that's problematic. There is this remains this kind of dichotomy in in academia about
53:17
you know, "I'm a rigorous pure scientist and I don't get involved in any of that;
53:22
outreach or policy. I'm just going to do good science and I'm on my way, the National Academy." Then there are the sustainability science scientists who were perhaps very you know the criticism or the concern is that the students are trained in such broad areas ranging from economics to ecology to energy all of these issues. And so what is their solid rigor and expertise. And so we really need to meld. These two and we need to start training students in
53:55
paths that are not just going to become a professor.
53:59
So to sort of recap that we do need to move up a notch to
54:06
melding these disciplines. Exactly.
54:11
Anna Wall: All right. So it at this time, I'm not getting a lot of questions from the audience. So I will try to bring up one that I have already prepared.
54:23
Anna Wall: Can you give us a picture of biodiversity recovery on our part, following the still unpredictable and these wildfires?
54:31
Leah Gerber: Ah,
54:37
Leah Gerber: No, I mean, I, I'm sort of
54:41
Leah Gerber: I think we can learn a lot.
54:44
Leah Gerber: And I'm hopeful. We can learn a lot about what's been happening with the planet. You know, the convergence of --
54:53
-- you know, we're in a pandemic. We have climate change. We have wildland fires. What are the sort of exasperate exacerbating impacts of all of these things coming together?
55:05
I think the message is that we need to do much better job at mitigating climate change and also
55:13
fire management. We can't suppress fires.
55:17
And we're seeing the consequences of this to you know local economies and I mean, not to mention biodiversity, so
55:26
if you could clarify exactly what your question is about biodiversity recovery. I think it's going to be a long time to from what's happening. Anna Wall: Yeah, that's, that's basically the frame of the question is, like, you know, is this going to take 10 years 20 years 100 years? What -- what it's never going to look the same, but like, what is it going to look like on the part of --
55:52
Anna Wall: Us living in these areas who are who are that are burning down. What are we supposed to be doing, to make sure that recovery of biodiversity in these areas is successful? Leah Gerber: Well, I think that the simple answer is that --
56:09
we need to do a much better job with fire, managing, allowing control burns and
56:18
-- and also mitigating you know climate -- climate change. When when we have, you know, one, one of the big consequences of climate changes is
56:27
more, more extreme events like these, you know, droughts, floods, fires.
56:34
and -- it's not going to be the same. None of it's ever going to be the same. But we can learn and we can adapt and we can recover, and things are going to look different, you know, we were looking at the Anthropocene here and to some extent, it makes me nervous to say like, we get to decide what we want the world to look like, but we do. We do. I mean, we've already demonstrated that we can have this substantial impact on the planet.
57:00
What do we want the world to look like? Do we want to have whales and elephants, or do we want to live in a world that's to operate of nature. And I think now's the time to really tackle these questions.
57:12
Anna Wall: So, um, what do you recommend related to food deserts and individual contributions to diversity and connections to nature with food purchases and not grown
57:22
Anna Wall: Purchased and not grow.
57:25
Leah Gerber: What was the last part?
57:28
Leah Gerber: Maybe say the whole thing again. Anna Wall: Right. What do you recommend, related to food deserts and individual contributions to diversity and connections to nature with food purchased and not grown
57:41
Leah Gerber: And what's the last thing again food purchased and what? Anna Wall: And not grown. Sorry, am I -- Leah Gerber: and not grown? Anna Wall: And not grown
57:50
Anna Wall: This is from the audience.
57:52
Leah Gerber: Oh, I see the question.
58:01
Leah Gerber: I just don't understand the question.
58:06
Leah Gerber: So what do I recommend related to food deserts,
58:11
individual contributions to diversity and connection. Oh okay to food that's purchased and not grown. Okay, now I get it.
58:21
I mean, this kind of goes back to
58:25
you know, the idea of the agricultural subsidies for the large monocultures I think we, you know, we're
58:34
we're experiencing the, the consequences of our broken food, food system and getting back into
58:46
you know -- as the question raises, that you know there's a huge disconnect between what we buy at the grocery store and how and what goes into producing it. And I think as a society every effort should be taken to reconnect consumers to the source of their food and technology can help some of these apps and in approaches where we can actually track the origin of individual
59:17
agriculture or seafood. I feel quite optimistic about this. I also think there's a huge role for small scale farms and for for farms, actually, you know, agricultural areas, providing habitat for biodiversity. I mean, agriculture is much better than a parking lot.
59:36
So there, there are sort of many angles to that question.
59:41
I think you know food deserts are not a good thing.
59:46
And we as consumers have a choice and and what we choose to support.
59:53
Anna Wall: Completely agree.
59:55
Anna Wall: So,
1:00:00
Anna Wall: Pardon the question, but times seem gloomy these days. How is it your side of the scientific community stays for hopeful, and that is from me, not the audience.
1:00:09
Leah Gerber: Um, well, I'll admit that I'm not always so hopeful, but you know I do. I do passionately care about the planet in the world and
1:00:22
I, you know, probably like many conservation spot --scientists and you know I'm inspired by nature, I think, you know, that may be a
1:00:35
sort of more spiritual or ethical foundation that I'm coming from. But, you know, there's also I fundamentally, I think we have the scientific evidence to show that the future of humanity depends on nature. And so I think that
1:00:51
you know, the way I view it, I suppose, is that our work is cut out for us. There's a huge need and a huge challenge for what I do what I can contribute what we as a community of scientists can contribute to this world that is not being taken into account, and I can see I guess maybe I have faith that things are going to get better.
1:01:17
Anna Wall: Um, so we kind of already talked about this before, but I wonder if you could give us a little bit more information on how it is to be a successful environmental leader? Especially on the community level, where -- like locations where our university is, so it's like small towns. Leah Gerber: Oh, so how to be a successful environmental leader? Anna Wall: Yeah.
1:01:42
Leah Gerber: You know, I just finished teaching
1:01:45
an ecology and conservation course and I haven't structured in a way where we talked a lot about the role of science and public discourse and I think we all have to choose for ourselves.
1:02:00
you know where we want to fall in that continuum from advocacy to science from the, you know, Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd advocates to you know, maybe the Nature Conservancy or Conservation International or or academia and the like science based approaches. Where do we see ourselves? What calls us? And be true to that because that there's not really one way
1:02:26
you know, like I mentioned earlier, I think there is a role for for strong advocacy. There's also a strong role for good science and being able to communicate it, I think that's that's the key ingredient is the ability to communicate. And I think that requires practice and training. So I would encourage people to take science communication courses or do any kind of training that you that you can engage in because, I can't remember the saying, but it's something like
1:02:54
What's the use of knowledge, unless you're using it or communicating it?
1:03:03
Anna Wall: Ok lets see if you have any questions. It doesn't look like it.
1:03:06
Anna Wall: Um
1:03:10
Anna Wall: Trying to pick one. Can you describe the importance of teamwork, when tackling environmental issues?
1:03:16
Leah Gerber: Absolutely. Teamwork.
1:03:24
Leah Gerber: Just trying to think, where to start here. It's essential and it's also in --
1:03:31
in thinking about academia, you know, we're really trained to
1:03:37
demonstrate our individual rigor and have our you know stellar individual record. That's really, in contrast to what's needed to solve these complex problems. An example is what I talked about in this talk is the IPBES work. You know, this is hundreds, you know, 150 people from all over the world, many different cultures, maybe many different ideologies, coming together with jetlag to tackle these huge problems.
1:04:06
So what are, what is the silver bullet of teamwork? I think, you know, some of those principles I mentioned at the end of the talk like a really an ability to listen. Empathy. Empathy and I think we all sort of have our ideas of how things should be
1:04:23
That really kind of --
1:04:27
When you're in a --
1:04:30
Collaboration or a setting where you're interacting with others to -- to really focus on listening to what the other person is saying. And I find that a lot of the time when I have a strong opinion. There's an inclination to just wait till that person finishes. So I can say what I want and I would encourage people to really listen and, you know, I think, you learn a lot in the collective kind of move forward when people are really listened to.
1:04:58
Even if you have different opinions.
1:05:04
-- I think --
1:05:06
Breaking down that divide between natural and social science is also important, and I see that I see that breaking down. I see a lot more interaction between social and natural scientists and we're going to really need that in terms of
1:05:22
breaking down the barriers of, like, oh, well, social sciences and real science and natural science you don't really get with the real world about. We can't think that way. We have to value, what are each bringing. To come up with that innovation that is needed to solve these challenges.
1:05:41
Anna Wall: All right, thank you. That's all I have for you. Leah Gerber: Wonderful. Well, thank you, great questions.
1:05:48
Rene Romo : Thank you Anna. Yeah, thanks for moderating Thank you Dr. Gruber. I think that's a good spot to
1:05:55
end the the talk. The idea of collaboration between different people and especially your words about listening. It's so important for political leadership to listen to what the scientists are are saying and to really hear it.
1:06:11
Which means I think responding to what you're saying and acting making the tough decisions. So really appreciate that message. I want to thank the audience for all the questions that you provided they were very good, fascinating, and challenging talk Dr Gerber, and we really appreciate you speaking to our community here in Southern New Mexico.
1:06:32
I feel confident, I can say that we all sincerely appreciate the really important work that you're doing to further the critical cause of species preservation and promoting biological diversity in the planet.
1:06:46
To the audience. I just want to say that we hope you'll join us for the next event on which we are partnering with the University of New Mexico. It's very much related to the biological diversity crisis that we're talking about that we talked about tonight. UNM is hosting a panel discussion on November 19 titled Indigenous Kinship and Multi-species Justice. If you go to the
1:07:10
web address on screen. You will find information about it and how to register for that event. That talk I just want to say well feature Fawn Sharp President of the National Congress of American Indians and head of the Quinault Nation in Washington state. As well as State University of New York botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer who is the author of Braiding Sweet Grass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants.
1:07:39
We're really happy to be able to offer these talks to the public as we all strive to be lifelong learners.
1:07:46
And with that, I just want to say good night. And thank you again. Dr. Gruber. Leah Gerber: Thanks. Thank you. I enjoyed it. Thanks for the great questions. And please reach out via email or Twitter if you should have any questions. Have a good night.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat