182: COP 15: Nothing Without Nature!

Christiana: [00:32:04]  Survival, right.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:32:07] People who are on the quote unquote, coal face of nature, on the frontlines of nature, who are forced to destroy nature in order to make a living, are really on the margins of survival already. Right. So this should be a unifying theme. The reason is we have not yet quite figured out, well, being able to demonstrate at scale that there is a restoration economy, there is a nature economy, and that, you know, that it is in your own enlightened self-interest in order to invest in these things so that we can all provide for more jobs, etc.. That is starting to happen now. It's just too slow. So what.

Christiana: [00:32:42] Sajjan, is it fair to say that those that are struggling with their survival and do have to cut down trees or whatever, that they're actually not substantially responsible for the destruction is actually more the organized industry that is causing most of the destruction of nature? Is that fair or not?

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:33:06] I think it's a bit bit of both. So I think it's certainly organized industry. So the big battles that happen often happen without any of the folks who are right in nature actually having any agency to change that pathway. That's the organized business, the bigger macro forces that that make a country destroy its forest or exploit oil or build a dam. But then on the front lines, too, there is a rural survival issue and there is the lack of jobs and lack of opportunities, you know, does trickle into into saving nature. I mean, the Liberia example I gave you, I mean, I literally went to a 300,000 hectare forced concession, which was supposed to have a small amount developed into palm oil and the rest set aside for nature. That was the sort of general agreement, but for a variety of factors that had very little to do with the people who live within that forest, the plantation never really materialized. The company who started it pulled out of Liberia. The palm oil could not be sold in Europe. And then all that the 20 villages that were in this forest were forced because there are no jobs to go out and cut the forest down for charcoal. So, you know, it's it's more complex than than only saying it's the big industries. It's both.

Tom: [00:34:27] Yeah. And sorry, Paul, do you want to come in with one more question? Yeah. Yeah. So I just wanted to follow this on. So it's really interesting what you say about the fact that this is about the finance that we see, the political world, which is more naturally there. And I would add to what you say, I mean, Christiana and I are often asked, what will it look like when we've done this on climate and people don't get that inspired about. The idea of efficient lighting systems and more and more effective motors. But what they want is a regenerated natural environment that they can live in. It's the thing that that lights us up, right? It's the prize where we're aiming for. But it's fascinating to hear you say that the political will has been there. The native constituency of this exists, which it doesn't necessarily exist for climate. There are people that care passionately about restored nature, but the financing hasn't quite worked. So what how do we know now? We hear a lot of talk about things like biodiversity credits and integrating conservation with sustainable livelihoods. What are the through lines there to provide a platform for conservation while also allowing the finance to access these solutions so they can be delivered at scale?

Paul: [00:35:28] Yeah, that was also my question. Basically, the investment returns I've heard you speak of, we've got thousands and thousands of entrepreneurs listening to this podcast. You know, how should they look at the business case and how they can get involved?

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:35:40] I mean, there is a nature economy coming. It's essentially here. We can't hire fast enough within Conservation International for the new types of jobs that have been created. They are in restoration, they in carbon, they're in forest management. I mean, that's a real field. And it's amazing what I'm seeing happening there. So to answer your question, though, take a step back. There are two parts of this. One is getting rid of all the subsidies that go into destroying nature right now. Right. It is hard to just it's easy to say. It's a bit hard to do because you've got to untangle it out from real subsidies that help people get to that next stage. But there are enormous amounts of funding that goes into subsidizing things that provide actually quite poor return on investment already and they often protectionist around a particular industry, etc.. Getting rid of that, that's about $500 billion of subsidies that flow into destroying nature. We could dramatically reduce that and make it a much easier task to get to a net positive world, nature positive world, and then the restoration economy. So I see three quick areas that come into mind. One is we've been talking about natural capital for a long time. It's finally starting to be actualized. So it's cities protecting watersheds, it's communities investing in coral reefs to protect them from storm surges or insurance companies getting into that. So it's about risk management and resource management at a time of scale mitigation.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:37:12] Mitigation as well as creating so.

Paul: [00:37:14] Long term adaptation. So I got it exactly the wrong word. Adaptation, business cases, it's adaptation.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:37:20] It's some, some of it's mitigation, some of it's adaptation, some of it is just simply understanding that, you know, 40% of Mombasa is drinking water comes from one mountain range called the Tulu Hills. And if you don't protect that, that water is going right. So that's one part of it. But we've been talking about that for a long time. It's been slow to emerge as a real scalable field. The other two parts have scaled much quicker. One is restoration, putting back things grazing, grassland restoration, forest restoration, timber management. You know, wood products are having a rebirth. They're seen as potentially the new, new, new product of building for the future. Right. It's amazing what we're now doing with wood that we never imagined possible, you know, 50 years ago. And so there is an interest in in both harvesting timber but also restoring forests you know at scale. So in Brazil, for example, there's a really interesting initiative done by a private bank to buy up degraded land, restore half of it to natural conditions and use the other half for sort of FSC certified timber. So one side pays the other and kind of keeps it growing. The other third part about it is carbon, and I know that's a bit controversial at time, but the truth of the matter is, you know, there's living carbon on this planet.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:38:46] There are some parts of the planet that are chock full of living carbon, carbon and trees, carbon in the soil, carbon under water. If we lose it, it's essentially game over for everything else we're trying to do. Countries ought to be able to monetize that and protect it just as they would protect an oil an oil deposit, Right. I mean, and I see that like for Africa and the Americas and some parts of Asia, I see that as the new commodity, like Africa should be a carbon exporter, but green carbon. Right. And green carbon. And there is a real reason why we should care about protecting the forests of the of DRC or the forest of Indonesia or the force of the Amazon or Amazonia, because if we don't do that, it's going to make everything else much harder. In fact, it's going to make a climate goals essentially impossible. That economy is absolutely booming. Like any new new field, there are shenanigans. There are bad actors. But they're also good actors, and I think we ought to promote the good ones and make sure the bad ones are exposed.

Tom: [00:39:53] So that's really interesting. I mean, that's I assume that's what you're talking about there is biodiversity credits. Christiana, do you want to come in? You're about to be chucked out.

Christiana: [00:40:00] Actually, my computer gave me just in the last second the option not to be kicked out.

Tom: [00:40:05] Oh, it gave you a pass.

Christiana: [00:40:07] Sanjayan, I am old enough to remember when debt for nature swaps were the thing, right? And Costa Rica did several. Ecuador did several. I remember several Latin American countries said that it and given the fact that we're not going to have any handouts on this or on the climate issue, for sure, no handouts. So obviously we need to come up with innovative financial models that make sense to both sides in order to be able to funnel the funding that is necessary to protect these ecosystems. You speak a lot about biodiversity credits. I would love to know what is the relationship between that at a conceptual level and debt for nature swaps, which are of course, I'm assuming that one is more private sector related, the other one is more public sector. And if that is the case, are these two financial models, do they go hand in hand? And should we pursue be pursuing both at the same time?

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:41:20] You know, Christiana, you're the first person to link the two in my conversations. And you're right, they are related. You know, both of them put a value on nature and then find a way to monetize that value and encourage countries to protect it for some kind of monetary value. Right. Biodiversity is a little bit more fine scale, but ultimately they are the they're the same essential thing. You're right that debt for nature is mostly the province of governments, whereas how we think about carbon credits is probably more the province of the private sector. But governments play a role in, even in the private sector. Feel like you see with carbon debt for nature swaps certainly work. Conservation International started with a debt for nature swap in Bolivia and I've been to that protected area more recently. It's still there. The indigenous communities that work there are still there, still protecting it. And so it does have a long this was 35 years ago. It's got a good long track record. The Nature Conservancy is quite keen on some debt for nature swaps in the in the marine space. For example, the challenge with debt for nature swap right at this moment is that the cost of borrowing has gone up. So when we're talking about seven, 8% or more, it makes it harder to do these swaps. So that's a temporary pause because of of of the cost of borrowing that has skyrocketed in the in more recent terms, biodiversity credits, a new instrument.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:42:51] They try to do the same thing. But by engaging the private sector, so many companies have made these pledges to go, you know, nature positive or do no harm when it comes to nature. Some of them have made very concrete promises. So WalMart, for example, you know, the CEO of WalMart has stood on stage and said, we are going to protect I forgot exactly what it is, but sort of like 50 million hectares of land and water in order to meet our targets. Right. Where should he do that? How what what form should that protection restoration actually take? That's where carbon, that's where biodiversity credits can come to play, where we can quantify the biological value of a place and find a way to swap it with an ambition that a company has made either for their own supply chain or because their consumers are expecting it. It is much harder than carbon credits to to make happen because one tonne of carbon is the same no matter where it is. Whereas biodiversity obviously has by its very name, it's diverse, but that is a technical problem and I feel confident we can overcome it. So my feeling is biodiversity credits are coming. I'd rather get in front of it than behind it and I'd rather figure out a way to get the private sector engaged in this idea of protecting nature, protecting biodiversity.

Christiana: [00:44:18] And how do we protect biodiversity credits from going down the path of carbon, credits of the temptation to greenwash? How do we protect that? In this case, we actually have to green wash the planet with green. Sorry, that's.

Tom: [00:44:33] Not a good thing.

Christiana: [00:44:34] Exactly. It's a good thing. Yeah, from my perspective. But but. But you see, how do we protect biodiversity credits from the temptation to game the system? Let me use that one.

Paul: [00:44:45] Integrity.

Christiana: [00:44:46] Integrity.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:44:47] I think that happens in every sector. It certainly happens in any new sector. Just look at what the papers are writing about. Or however you can use. Just look at what's been written about. About any new sector that's out there. Right. You'll see this and everything from WeWorks to FDX. So it is nothing new to think that here we are creating a new class of investment. Of course, they're going to be people who come in to try to tame it. The way to get this on the right track is to have the role of government clearly defined. So I think one of the big mistakes that was made with the carbon sector, so carbon credits, which which my organization does participate in under quite narrow rules, is that the rules were left to the nonprofit sector to define. I mean, the US was completely missing from establishing guardrails or establishing guidance for many years. They're doing it now. But without that. So the role of government is not to say no. And the role of government is also not to never be present in the room. The role of government is to provide guardrails in order to ensure that a new class of investments or assets play by a fair playing field.

Paul: [00:46:06] So it starts with the game and starts with the game, and then we get the rules.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:46:09] It starts with the game. Yes. And then nearly always behind the scenes, they nearly always too late. Right? Like, look what happened to Bitcoin. Look what happened to all of that industry. Like, just scrambling to catch up. So, of course, we're going to see the same happen in biodiversity credits. Of course, we're going to see the same happen in carbon. But that's where the governments, particularly developed countries, particularly the global North Europe, the US, the UK and others, ought to play some role in defining those guardrails. You cannot leave it to either the country that is trying to get the credits out of their door. They just want the highest price. And if an oil and gas company comes and says, Give it to us, they'll say, Sure, nor can you leave it actually to the nonprofit sector. That's not ever our role.

Paul: [00:46:54] So presumably, if governments craft really great policy, they can then be central to these growing markets. But it's the quality of the policy we have actually often seen. For example, stock exchanges have grown up around the world in history because of good laws and good governance. But can I just ask a slightly different question? I mean, reading about the biodiversity issue, many authoritative sources talk about the need for a sort of cultural change in how we produce and consume. Would you say that the challenge that we're facing is kind of a little bit about communications and framing, you know, our culture and the way we produce and consume.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:47:35] I think it is about that, but I think that's a lot harder. It takes a lot longer to do than moving money. So I think that most of us who are in conservation or environmentalism, you know, look around and think, gosh, if only I could get this on television. It's going to change the world. I've been doing TV programs for 25 years, everything from Discovery Channel to the BBC. Is it really changing a lot of minds? I'm sure it's changing a few, but not anywhere near the amount of effort that I've put into doing that. In a way, it's almost like displacement behavior. What is going to make a difference is either either strong policies by a country, right? So a country like Colombia or Costa Rica, you know, over successive governments have had a generally positive view towards climate and towards biodiversity or nature protection. Right? And you can see that or because the financial flows, you know, that spigot gets turned on, which is what we're seeing, you know, with with the energy transition now, you know, when when President Trump pulled us out of the Paris climate agreement, I mean, the most amazing thing to me and I remember discussing this, Christiana, was the front what's the full page ad in The New York Times by a host of companies from Tiffany's to Walmart? Like, think about those two brands alone and look at what different audiences all saying we're in it, we're here to stay. They weren't doing that because all of a sudden, you know, they're just they're doing it because it made sense for that business. It made sense for their consumers. But most importantly, because what what's impressive with with that happening was that the financial sector, the business sector was sending a clear message.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:49:18] And I think that's what sustained us through those Trump years. And now we're seeing kind of almost the reverse where government is saying, we're going to pour all this money in to make it even more fertile ground here in the United States, certainly in order to attract investments. So, yes, communications are hugely important. So is the messenger. I mean, Christiana is an unbelievably talented messenger at that time when it came to the Paris Climate agreement. Right. It's not just the message. It's also the messenger and the medium by which you're doing it. But don't put too don't believe that somehow revolutions are going to be caused. And I know this is going to get me in some level of trouble because, you know, people on the streets marching or because kids are protesting from school, they help. But power is incredibly sticky. Every revolution we've seen in the past, the same people who were in power before it somehow managed to hang on to power afterwards. I mean, look, I'm from Sri Lanka. I never thought I would see a revolution like we saw about a year ago. Like. I mean, they burnt the previous president's house down. They burnt his museum down. People celebrate in the streets. Look at really what's happening now and who are back there and who are somehow now managing to still hold on to power. Kind of the same clique, right? So power is sticky. So to make this change, we've got to go much deeper than just messaging.

Christiana: [00:50:47] Wow, Sanjayan. Well, that's a sobering thought. Thank you for that. We really appreciate that. Yeah, because it makes us dig deeper in and analyzing where are the opportunities for progress. So thank you for bringing us back down to to Earth. And Sanjayan, sadly, very sadly, we need to come to a close, but cannot do so without asking you our proverbial two questions. What makes you outraged? And where are your rays of optimism?

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:51:28] The cheapest, most effective thing that we can do to change the lives in a positive way of my three year old daughter is protecting and restoring nature at scale. It will provide jobs in rural areas that are hard to find. It will create a more sustainable environment for everything from businesses to infrastructure to people's lives. And it is the bedrock, the foundation upon which the climate argument, the climate challenge has been built. We are now trying to get in there deep under the Earth and literally change our foundation. shored up. And I think this COP is a crucial moment to do that. And yet I feel that this moment is going to pass. It is not only because we haven't done the work to get us there and because of COVID and because of the strange leadership that we have right now at CBD with with multiple countries trying to move things forward and the whole organisation of it. But the piece that it's not, it's like it's what really makes me cry. Is that this is the cheapest, best way we can save our planet and save our lives and save all of the lives that we have evolved with. And yet we are figuring this moment away. Yeah, there's another CBD that's going to happen in Turkey in two years, and whatever happens out of this one, we've got to make sure we're prepared for that one. Right. Ray of optimism. The energy transition. Like what an amazing moment to be here in DC. I was in the room with President Macron where he's sort of both pleading with and cajoling and slightly berating a group of congressional leaders that the US has gone too far by providing too many subsidies to, you know, renewables. Amazing.

Christiana: [00:53:37] It's a problem we should all have.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:53:39] It's a great problem to have. And he and he said it as well.

Paul: [00:53:42] It's like telling someone they ran a marathon too quickly. You can't do that.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:53:45] Exactly. Like, you know, like we gave him better shoes, right? Like, it's fantastic. What a wonderful problem to have. And what he's he's not saying don't do it. He's saying synchronize better. Right. Synchronize Europe and the US. We get we all for that. But a wonderful place to do that rather than simply it's now levelling up Europe rather than leveling down someplace else. Right.

Tom: [00:54:08] That's a great way to put it.

Christiana: [00:54:13] And Sanjayan, how did they try to synchronize with Europe? They would have missed the political window to do so.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:54:18] 100%. This was the right way to do it. They go do some negotiation with Europe and come and try to sell it here in the US. Wouldn't have happened.

Christiana: [00:54:25] Yeah, wouldn't have happened.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:54:27] Yeah.

Christiana: [00:54:28] Right. Well, it's been such a delight. It's such a delight to have you here on the podcast. We will be very attentive to everything that is happening on COP15. Thank you so much for so many years Sanjayan. So, so, so, so, so many years of of really carrying this torch as you and everybody at CI have been doing. So here is our gratitude to you, to your whole team and to everyone in that space. Right. Because those of us who are more in the climate space have educated ourselves that actually that boundary between the two spaces needs to be torn down. And you have always been pleading for that. So thank you so much for for everything that you have done also on on that one. Delightful to talk to you.

Dr M. Sanjayan: [00:55:24] Well, thank you, Tom and Paul and Christiana, thank you so much for this opportunity and for everything you guys do.

Tom: [00:55:31] Great to have you. See you soon. Bye. See you, Clay. Happy? Got everything you need?

Clay: [00:55:38] Yes, we got everything. Everything that we need. And we're still recording, so we can just go ahead.

Tom: [00:55:42] Okay. So. So good to talk to Sanjayan. I mean, what a leader he has been for so long on so many different issues. What we should do a pretty quick wrap up because we this has already been a long episode, although very fun. What do you both leave the conversation with?

Paul: [00:55:55] I was really struck about, well, it's a point that had been made earlier that, you know, 30% of global action on climate change is is, you know, needs action on nature. But only 3% of funding is going to that. It seems to me that the climate change movement and the biodiversity movement are the same movement. We've got very, very technical in climate change. We think about renewable energy and windmills and costs of solar falling and we think about smart grids. And I've been saying like the Internet's going to be laid over the energy infrastructure, but probably the Internet is going to be laid across nature as well. And actually, we should see this as a single integrated movement. That was that was the thing that stand out for me.

Christiana: [00:56:30] The stand out for me is something that I hadn't thought about and was amazed that I hadn't thought about before, which is his comment that nature or the protection of nature is less politicized than climate because everyone wants to protect nature. That is, I'm not sure if that is factually true, but let's say just out of my gut, I would say that is a true statement. And I'm a little bit concerned about the fact that that is a fact because of the following. In climate, we know that we have politicized the conversation incredibly, and there is no factual reason why climate ought to be more politicized than nature, because we're all feeling the effects of climate impacts. So I'm a little bit concerned about which way are we going, are we going to go the way of politicizing nature unnecessarily and and and against all of our interests? Or will the climate discussion be inspired by the non politicized nature of nature discussion? And do we move in that direction? So I'm a little bit concerned about which direction are we going to follow.

Tom: [00:57:55] Yeah, that's such an interesting point. I've had that thought before and I think that, you know, we could talk about this a lot, but arguably this issue of climate came to a certain degree from those who sounded the alarm on the left. And the solution proposed was a regulatory solution. So those who proposed deregulation resisted and that got embedded and entrenched to the point where it then became systemic. But I really hope I mean, certainly here in the UK and across Europe and I think even in the US, I mean, you know, the cities tend to be left leaning voters and the rural areas tend to be right leaning voters. And people who live in those rural areas tend to want to not see them destroyed and change. So I think it is true that we see a right of center interest in the concepts of conservation, local conservation in particular, and that can have dark elements to it as well for sure, but it can also be positive. So I took that away from it too. And I think that that's really, I think, an encouraging thing, if we can see it both as local as well as global, because that's often where that fault line lies.

Paul: [00:58:59] But just to say also that companies are coming to to realise this now, we actually had 7700 companies talking on biodiversity this year to us, but less than 50% are taking action. So there's a gap between awareness and action.

Tom: [00:59:13] I also think that we should set a new target for legislation in the US that if it makes the French President come over claim about how good it is, then it's successful.

Paul: [00:59:22] So you are going to fast. But I admire you.

Tom: [00:59:28] So thank you very much, everyone. This has been a great episode. We will be watching what's happening in Montreal with great interest and enormous respect and admiration for all of the brilliant people who will be there negotiating away over the next two weeks. We live with a piece of music this week from Boyish. The song is Mom, I Think I'm Gay. So I hope you enjoy this and there will be a bonus that will be out on Tuesday, where Christiana has had a wonderful conversation with a group called HERO. You'll learn more about that on Tuesday, so please tune in for that. Other than that, I think this is our last episode of the year?

Paul: [01:00:04] Not quite. No.

Tom: [01:00:05] We got one more. All right. Other than that. Other than that, We'll see you next week. All right. So see you next week by everyone.

Paul: [01:00:10] Bye bye for now. Bye.

Boyish: [01:00:14] Hi. This is boyish. We're an indie duo based in Los Angeles. The song we're playing today is called Mom I Think I'm Gay. It's a song that was off our first album, Garden Spider, that came out in 2020, right before the pandemic. It's a song about struggling to come out of the closet and being afraid that people that you love won't accept you. When it comes to the current climate crisis, we're optimistic by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will lend itself to significantly cutting the emission of greenhouse gases. We're outraged by the lack of urgency that it will take to actually bring climate solutions to the world at scale. 

Clay: [01:03:24] So there you go. Another episode of Outrage + Optimism. Boyish. Boyish is new to me, but a Christmas treat. Boyish is the collaboration between singer songwriter India Shorr and guitarist Claire Altendahl. The track that you just heard was Mom, I Think I'm Gay. And I was actually just thinking about this as advice to our listeners. If you're about to go spend some time over the holidays with some younger millennials or Gen Zers. Boyish is a great band to bring up, saying, Hey, I heard this artist. Check them out. They're picking up steam as a duo, and now is actually the time to start adding them to your Apple Music or Spotify follows because their time is coming. I went on their YouTube channel and I found four videos that I'm going to recommend to watch. So here they are. First one, Smithereens. Number two, Legs. Number three, Congratulations. And number four, Superstar. Now, you don't have to memorize that. And those aren't in any particular order. But actually, I think Smithereens is my personal favorite. There are links you can click in the show notes to just go there. You can go watch all of them. And for my favorite listeners who make it all the way to the credits at the end, a fun fact.

Clay: [01:04:48] Last week's artist Belle did a track with Boyish that's off her latest record titled Jet Lag, which I recommended that album last week. Link in the show notes to that as well. You can go. Listen, would you look at that artist we've had on the podcast working together. Can't take credit for the collaboration, but I think I'm going to. You're welcome. I'm just kidding. Please go check out the show notes for all of Boyish's socials. Links to their music, of course. They are planning more releases in spring 2023. More music. More stuff to enjoy. Boyish. So good. Thank you to our guests this week, Sanjayan. You can keep up to date with Son John and the work of Conservation International by clicking around in the show notes. It's all there. Thank you, Sanjayan. Moving right along, we mentioned it at the top of the episode, but the listener survey is closing soon, so please make it a priority to fill out those open text boxes. They call them just in places where you can type whatever you want instead of just clicking like strongly agree, strongly disagree. Now, I should mention we're reading all your responses and those responses will shape the podcast next year. So I promise it's really short.

Clay: [01:06:18] There's no grade at the end of it. You don't pass or fail. You just complete its open response. It's it's an open book. You can have your notes with you. It sounds like I'm prescribing an at home test or something, but I'm not. We seriously can't wait to hear from you, and time is of the essence. Please check the link below and fill out that survey. It will help us out so much and it'll make the podcast better for you. You'll enjoy it more. Okay. That is everything. Thank you so much for sticking with us for the entire episode this Friday, The Way Out is In is posting an episode on generosity, and next week, Tuesday, we'll have another episode of Outrage + Optimism on HERO Circles. We just finished recording that, I think, a couple of days ago. It was fantastic. Can't wait for you to hear that. And generosity is also a part of that episode. You won't want to miss it. And next Thursday, our last episode of the year, we have a special guest. You won't want to miss it. I keep saying you won't want to miss it. There's so much going on you're not going to want to miss. Just hit subscribe. We'll see you next week. Bye.