Hello! Some personal news: I’ve started a new newsletter called The Nature Beat about biodiversity, conservation, ecological restoration, nature-based solutions to climate change, and so on. While it is aimed primarily at journalists, it will be useful to anyone else who is interested in these topics and wants to stay up-to-date.
Each week, The Nature Beat provides a mix of news, reporting resources, job postings, links to some great stories and a look ahead at what’s coming up in the world of biodiversity and nature policy. The latest edition is here. It provides updates on nature-related developments at the COP28 climate change conference, as well as a whole bunch of other things.
President Joe Biden has stated that the United States will impose trade sanctions on China if it does not address its role in the illegal trade in pangolins, the world’s most heavily trafficked animals, by the end of the year.
Pangolins are endangered scaly mammals that live in Africa and Asia. They are widely poached for their flesh and scales, which are used in traditional medicines, particularly in China. Since January 2017, commercial international trade in pangolins has been banned under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). But illicit trade continues.
According to the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a nongovernmental organization, around 600,000 pangolins were illegally traded between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, authorities in Singapore seized 14 tons of pangolin scales in transit from Nigeria to Vietnam. Worth more than US$38 million, they came from an estimated 36,000 pangolins.
In August 2020, EIA and its partners at the Center for Biological Diversity and the Global Law Alliance for Animals and the Environmentpetitioned the US government to certify China under a law called the Pelly Amendment. This law authorizes the US President to restrict imports from any nation engaging in trade that undermines an international treaty for protecting endangered species.
More than three years later, on 8 September 2023, the US Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced that she had issued a finding that Chinese nationals are “diminishing the effectiveness of CITES by engaging in trade or taking of pangolin species”.
This set a clock ticking for Joe Biden. Under the Pelly Amendment, he had 60 days to decide whether to embargo any product from China. The law requires the President to explain to Congress any failure to impose sanctions against a certified nation.
China responded swiftly. In a statement on 9 September, China’s main CITES-implementing agency — the National Forestry and Grassland Administration — said it “firmly opposed attempts to use the issue of pangolin protection to damage China’s reputation”.
The statement highlighted China’s “significant efforts and achievements in global pangolin protection” including ending commercial imports and exports of pangolins and their products, and acting against smuggling and illegal trading of pangolins.
But research published by EIA in October of this year showed that more than 50 products manufactured by Chinese companies contain pangolin derivatives and are easily available online.
James Toone, EIA’s Deputy Campaign Lead for pangolins told me that: “China’s quota system – whereby it grants private entities the use of pangolin scales for the manufacture of ‘licensed products’ – is in fact fraught with opacity and complexity.”
“It is almost certainly an open invitation to corruption,” says Toone. “EIA has called for all private stockpiles of pangolin scales to be destroyed.”
On 3 November, President Biden issued his legally-required message to the US Congress. Rather than sanction China, he set a deadline for action, acknowledging that China had made some progress and needed more time to take the “necessary steps to protect pangolin species from possible extinction”.
Biden said China needed to completely close its domestic market for pangolins and pangolin parts, transparently account for domestic stockpiles, and fully remove pangolins and pangolin parts from the national list of approved medicines.
He said: “If significant commitments by the People’s Republic of China to implement CITES-directed measures to protect pangolin species have not been made by December 31, 2023, I plan to direct certain prohibitions on the importation of, and impose trade measures on, certain products from the People’s Republic of China.”
Such products might include fish and wildlife products, as well as pharmaceuticals made by companies that manufacture products containing pangolin derivatives.
“We think the response by the President is quite strong, and we’re hopeful that the US is able to successfully negotiate meaningful change,” says Erica Lyman, Director of the Global Law Alliance for Animals and the Environment.
Sarah Uhlemann, International Program Director and Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, says: “We hope the White House will continue to assert strong pressure over the next two months.”
“The White House announcement suggested that the President is standing strong, demanding that China close its domestic market, account for stockpiles, and remove pangolins from its national list of traditional Chinese medicines,” she told me. “These actions would make a real difference for pangolin survival.”
John Kirk Townsend, who lived from 1809 to 1851, was a prolific American naturalist. In his short life, he collected specimens of several species of bird that were new to science. But he was also an odious racist who raided the graves of Native Americans. He removed skulls from their corpses and sent them to Samuel Morton, one of the founders of scientific racism.
Whether realising this or not, for nearly two hundred years, biologists and birdwatchers have had to utter this man’s name when speaking of birds called Townsend’s Solitaire and Townsend’s Warbler. But those days could soon be over. On 1 November, the Council of the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced that it would be changing all English-language names of birds in its jurisdiction that have been named after people.
Many scientists are celebrating the decision. Back in 2018, a PhD student called Robert Driver had urged the AOS to rename a bird called McCown’s Longspur (Rhynchophanes mccownii). It was named after was John P. McCown, who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War and had been involved in forced relocations of Native Americans in the 1840s.
“This longspur is named after a man who fought for years to maintain the right to keep slaves, and also fought against multiple Native tribes,” wrote Driver. “I ask that the English name of Rhynchophanes mccownii be changed from McCown’s Longspur to a sensible name or, if possible, a name used by Native tribes.”
In 2019, an AOS committee rejected Driver’s proposal. But the following year, it announced a rethink and soon after renamed the bird the Thick-Billed Longspur.
In the meantime, the Bird Names for Birds campaigned had taken off, highlighting other controversial names — such as a sparrow named after a slave owner and racist called John Bachman. The campaign called on the AOS to rename another 149 bird species in North America that bore the names of people.
Writing on X yesterday, Halley pointed out that calls to end the naming of species after people are not new. Way back in 1799, the American ornithologist Charles W. Peale had stated that it was essential to stop “naming subjects of Nature, after Persons, who have plumed themselves with those childish ideas of their being the first discoverers of such or such things”.
More than two centuries later, the AOS agrees. It will give new English names to 260 bird species in the Americas, regardless of the merits or failings of the individuals after whom they are named. It will also rename three species whose names are otherwise offensive or exclusionary.
Announcing the plan, AOS President Colleen Handel said: “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said. “We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focuses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves.”
I was devastated to learn that my friend and former colleague Saleemul Huq died at his home in Bangladesh on 28 October. Few individuals have had a greater impact on humanity’s response to the climate emergency than him. It was an honour to know and work with such a man.
Without Saleem, the world would be hotter today than it is. Communities the world over would be less prepared to face what is coming. And we would have less hope of ever reigning in the climate monster. He was an inspirational and visionary leader, a master strategist, and a mentor to hundreds of people. His death has sent shockwaves through the vast community of people working on climate change.
I first encountered Saleem when I was working as a journalist and needed a comment on a story on climate change. Soon, and for eight years, I was working alongside him at the International Institute for Environment and Development, where he led the climate change group and I was the organization’s press officer.
Saleem was a dream to work with as he never turned down a chance to talk to journalists about climate change. He would be ready at 4:00 am for an interview with a reporter on the other side of the world. He would say “yes” to a media request whether it came from a major broadcaster or a tiny newspaper. I introduced him to hundreds of journalists and he gave his time and knowledge to them all. Saleem was on a mission and he knew that each second counted. He took every opportunity to push the world towards a sustainable future.
Saleem’s passing is hard to take in. I will remember him for his softly-spoken words and the glint in his eye, his warmth, good humour, generosity and tireless commitment to justice.
The outpouring of love for him on social media this week has been a powerful reminder of how many lives Saleem touched and how many careers he shaped. This is perhaps his greatest legacy, the small army of Saleem-inspired researchers, activists, negotiators, policymakers, journalists and others in every corner of the world who have committed their lives to addressing the climate and ecological emergencies. I’m sure his passing will inspire many to redouble their efforts.
Goodbye Saleem. The work goes on. We will never forget you.
A new study highlights flaws in stories that conservation organizations often tell about how protected areas can improve the wellbeing of local people. It shows that some of the most entrenched narratives lack evidence and need more nuance. But it found stronger evidence for narratives that centre the rights and roles of indigenous people and local communities.
The findings are timely as the global community is striving to agree a new plan for conserving the planet’s biodiversity and securing the benefits it provides us. That deal, set to be agreed at the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, could include a target of increasing protected areas to 30% of the world’s land area, from about 17% today.
The target has the backing of more than 100 countries and some major conservation organizations. But groups focusing on human rights, such as Survival International, Amnesty and the Rainforest Foundation UK say it is a “disaster” waiting to happen.
“Should it go ahead, it will constitute the biggest land grab in history, and rob millions of people of their livelihoods,” said Fiore Longo of Survival International in a press release on 1 December. “If governments are really meaningful about protecting biodiversity, the answer is simple: recognize the land rights of Indigenous peoples.”
The new study on conservation narratives, in the journal UCL Open: Environment, lends weight to that argument. The researchers investigated evidence for each of five common narratives about protected areas and human wellbeing in countries that the World Bank defines as low- or lower middle-income.
These narratives are prevalent. One or more of them appears on 138 of the 169 websites of conservation organizations that the study team reviewed. More than 70 percent of these organizations used the “conservation is pro-poor” narrative.
“We see these narratives or stories playing out and being very powerful in directing conservation interventions,” says lead author Emily Woodhouse, an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at University College London. “These stories and narratives have value. They help organisations be efficient to roll out particular types of program or project. But the problem is if they override complexity. Using them in an unthinking way can be quite dangerous.”
Woodhouse told me that the first three narratives are particularly problematic, especially if they are used, “in a simplistic way that doesn’t account, for example, for broader ideas of wellbeing and only looks at material poverty”.
For example, compensation for the lack of access to natural resources, or for damage caused by wildlife to crops, is rarely sufficient. And it often fails to compensate for cultural losses alongside economic or material ones.
Similarly, while protected areas or ecotourism projects conservation can benefit poor people living nearby, they can also significantly harm them if they exclude them from accessing and using local natural resources.
“There is evidence that material poverty can decline with those kinds of projects,” says Woodhouse. “But there are also much wider issues around justice and broader wellbeing, and the fact that the poorest often lose out in these kinds of projects. What’s at stake is social justice.”
The other two narratives were better supported by the evidence the study team assessed. But the best-supported narrative — that secure tenure rights for local communities supports conservation — was also the least prevalent on the websites of conservation organizations, appearing on less than a quarter of them. Woodhouse says this is likely because the conservation sector is still catching up with the development sector about the importance of tenure.
“The emphasis on land tenure is relatively new,” says Woodhouse. “It has come alongside recognition that indigenous and local communities manage something like a quarter of all land across the world.”
These communities protect about 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity on that land. And there is growing evidence that they tend to manage land and resources better than state actors do. In 2021 for example, a review of evidence published in the journal Ecology and Society showed that conservation initiatives that centre indigenous people and other local communities tend to be more effective and fairer.
Lead author Neil Dawson of the University of East Anglia, and colleagues, looked at 169 studies and concluded that empowering and supporting the “the environmental stewardship of indigenous peoples and local communities represents the primary pathway to effective long-term conservation of biodiversity, particularly when upheld in wider law and policy”.
The study by Woodhouse and colleagues comes as countries are negotiating a new Global Biodiversity Framework — a 10-year strategy for addressing the biodiversity crisis. With time short, there is an urgent need to ensure that conservation solutions bring both social and ecological gains. But there is a risk that entrenched narratives will get in the way of the best outcomes.
Woodhouse says the draft Global Biodiversity Framework text “ticks all the boxes” by mentioning justice, equity, participation, and indigenous people and local communities, but says there are issues with nuance.
“There’s an emphasis on local communities as ‘stakeholders’, rather than being agents of change,” she says. “The emphasis should be shifted. And that goes for women as well, and marginalised groups.”
How the Global Biodiversity Framework is implemented within countries “is going to be really important, for justice and also the success of conservation,” she says. “It is about the most marginalised people losing out from these processes and the importance of putting local people and indigenous communities at the centre, for their voices to be heard and for governance structures to embed local systems and local knowledge into them.”
References:
Woodhouse, E. et al. 2021. Rethinking entrenched narratives about protected areas and human wellbeing in the Global South. UCL Open: Environment 4: DOI: 10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000050
Dawson, N. M. et al. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26: 19 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319
Biodiversity encompasses the full variety of life – all genes, species and ecosystems – and it is in danger, which means we are too. As this article explains, a major conference in December 2022 could have a big impact on our collective fate by helping to end biodiversity loss and restore nature. Continue reading →
In April 2021, Fox News issued a rare correction to its viewers after repeatedly reporting that President Biden’s climate change plans would force US consumers to cut their intake of red meat by 90%. The initial reporting sparked outrage among conservatives who claimed that Biden was coming for their burgers. But as Fox News later confirmed, none of this was in Biden’s plan.
When governments meet next year to finalise a global deal to halt loss of the biodiversity on which human wellbeing depends, “30 by 30” will be one phrase on everybody’s lips. The target – to protect at least 30% of Earth’s land and sea by 2030 – is part of a package being negotiated under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for the next decade and beyond.
Under The Banyan 
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}