- “In a culture that perceives nature as separate from people, the dominant conservation mindset is biased in theory and practice by science-based methodologies to conserve and protect nature,” a new op-ed argues.
- Rebecca Adamson is an Indigenous economist and shares her perspective on how traditional ecological knowledge, diverse perspectives, and innovative finance can truly conserve nature.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.
Scientists agree that the biodiversity crisis we face today may be one of the most disruptive events in Earth’s history. The response so far has been for hundreds of billions in government and philanthropic donor funds – along with trillions in private sector investment capital – to be dedicated to conservation, primarily for nature conservation and climate change. But is more and more money the answer, especially for a culture whose exploitation of nature for money is the problem? At the core, our society needs to muster the collective humility to admit this mindset is problematic and seek solutions outside itself.
In a culture that perceives nature as separate from people, the dominant conservation mindset is biased in theory and practice by science-based methodologies to conserve and protect nature. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for example is the world’s largest environmental organization – serving 1,400 member organizations, NGOs and governments, and 16,000 experts – with the aid of 1,000 staff in 50 countries and an annual budget of almost $1.2 billion. Habitat loss and degradation due to human exploitation is addressed mainly by ‘no go’ enclaves of wilderness or protected areas (PAs) and in 2021, IUCN members launched a major initiative to support ’30 by 30,’ whose goal is to designate 30% of the world as protected areas by 2030.
Indigenous conservation (or stewardship) perceives people as part of nature, though, and has a bias towards practical protections of nature and society. It is place-based and driven by empirical environmental sciences and complex evidence-based methodologies of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Comparisons of Indigenous-managed lands with other similar land areas finds that biodiversity abundance is “highest on lands managed by Indigenous communities – higher even than on protected areas like parks and wildlife reserves, which were found to have the second highest levels of biodiversity.”
Indigenous cultures, perceived as part of nature, embody a ‘conservation state of mind’ that instills individual responsibility in their members to protect nature. The well-being of society requires a balance between protection and production of nature: you protect nature because it produces for you, and it produces for you because you protect it.
The donor mindset
Governments and philanthropists have been donating billions of dollars to conservation and climate solutions over the past 50 years. During this time, more than 68% of the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish have disappeared, putting the planet’s survival and its inhabitants at risk. Donors have given little attention to collecting the kind of evidence-based data needed to analyze effectiveness and efficiency or provide for strategic deployment of their funds, yet such largely unaccountable and ever-increasing finance flows are no longer sustainable.
Neither is the mindset it engenders sustainable, when by default the main metric is money, versus metrics to measure reduction of pressure on ecosystems. A 2022 global survey of conservation priorities by Conservation Finance Alliance found 78% of the U.S. participants prioritized increased funding, while 69% of non-U.S. participants prioritized reducing pressure on ecosystems.
For scale, the PAs currently managed by conservation NGOS total 15% of the earth’s surface, or 20 million km2, while territories managed by Indigenous communities total at least 38 million km2 – almost twice the area of PAs – and span at least 30% of the earth’s surface, comprising 35% of formally protected natural environments and 35% of land area with limited human intervention.
In 2022, the World Bank reported that up to $140 billion is spent annually to manage the PAs. Since 40% of the land chosen to be part of that was taken from well managed Indigenous lands, the donors’ actual net for land conservation was only 9%, not 15%, and represents about $57 billion in costs. Additionally, World Bank Report estimates that “to fully fund PAs management it would cost at least $700 billion annually.”
Given the proven capacity of Indigenous community conservation, donors dedicate funding for ‘Indigenous efforts’ but not necessarily to Indigenous communities. In 2023 Grist reported that from 2011 to 2019, $2.7 billion was designated for Indigenous land tenure and forest management programs, but only 17% of that went directly to Indigenous organizations.
In 2021 at COP26, climate change funders announced a historic, 5-year $1.7 billion commitment. The Rainforest Foundation Norway reported in 2021 only 1% of these climate-related funds are reaching Indigenous organizations. Almost half, 43%, went to multi-laterals such as Development Banks and the UN Development Program, another 40% went to intermediaries like big NGOs such as Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International. And 75% of Indigenous communities impacted by these monies reported they were never informed, consulted, or compensated for any of the activities these monies funded.
The donors that cite barriers to funding Indigenous organizations directly are often the same that see no barriers to funding financial delivery systems that absorb between 83% to 91% of the funds. Such a mindset perpetuates large funding flows where the default metric is money over strategic, evidence-based results, and practical protections for nature.
Investor mindset
Over the past five years, conservationists have aggressively begun looking at capital markets as a new source of funding. This financialization of nature postulates that assigning a financial value to it will incentivize people to protect and value nature more. True or not, the entrance of investors will bring a focus on data, metrics, and a mindset for financial gain.
Conceptually, just think of transforming the living entities of nature into an abstraction – something that will be valued chiefly for its monetary worth (such as animals in the meat industry, or humans in the medical service industry). The World Economic Forum roundtable on investors and nature in 2022 warned that the abstraction needed to financialize nature is only possible if some close relationships between investors and nature are formed, but this is only half the equation. Individuals can form close relationships with nature, and many investors have done so.
Yet, regardless of investors, if financialization of nature is to succeed, capital markets will need a balanced relationship with nature. Consider the obvious relationship between food production and nature: in the 2022 financial market, food production was valued at $8 trillion. Yet without a relationship with nature, agriculture’s environmental damage, which totaled $12 trillion, had no market costs or financial risks, nor does mitigating the damage or risk avoidance get calculated as a value to the market.
For Indigenous peoples, both risk and risk avoidance form a complex and dynamic balance with nature. TEK and environmental sciences are used to balance inherent risks of production with mitigating measures of restorative protection. The relationship between markets and nature balances production and protection.
The unprecedented demand for natural resources has accelerated a spread of market volatility and is dictating changes in how risk and value are calculated. Investors can no longer look at their portfolios as an aggregate of individual businesses or individual sectors, without acknowledging the correlated or collective risks to their underlying asset base that is being driven by their individual holdings.
The European insurance industry, which tracks risks in climate, water, and environment, now includes conflict and famine risks. Data and tools for calculating correlated and collective risk are developing at a faster rate than the tools and techniques for calculating value. We need working models to demonstrate the diverse collaboration, innovation and financial ability required to integrate accurate costs and production risks along with the valuation techniques for investable mitigation and protection assets that are necessary to put these capital flows into service for nature and biodiversity.
The author also wrote the narrative for “Enoughness,” a video narrated by actor Tantoo Cardinal, about how Indigenous economics has “values added.”
A conservation state of mind
Calvert Impact Capital (CIC), for which I serve as Board Member Emeritus, led the first such innovative collaboration under its subsidiary, Climate United | Calvert Impact to create a $7 billion clean energy fund for low-income communities. Indigenous experts in climate sciences, conservation, solar and community finance intermediaries joined the collaboration to lead the first Native American Clean Energy Investment Portfolio (NACEIP) that includes culture in the ESG investment framework (ESG). NACEIP is a $790 million portfolio dedicated to strong financial performance and culturally appropriate tribal and native community clean energy projects. The NACEIP collaboration combines Climate United and the Indigenous Advisory Council with its professional financial delivery services (at a fraction of the price), with Wharton ESG research and conservation practitioners.
Indigenous peoples’ bias towards practical applications that reduce the pressure on ecosystems and protect nature serves as a crucial framework to integrate accurate costs and production risks with the valuation techniques for investable mitigation and protection of assets. A study in Indonesia that quantified the value of six Indigenous land management regimes including TEK and cultural practices, and the appraisals ranged from the lowest value of $1.8 billion to the highest of $3 billion, and found the “landscape valuation where local culture was an integral part of resilience was more” (of higher value).
Historically, Indigenous cultures have struggled against relentless pressure from the markets to maintain their relationship with nature. Now that conservationists are trying to engage the capital market, they will face a similar contradiction because of what conservation is trying to do, and what the forces of financialization require be done. As in medieval times, the holy alchemy for gold – in this case turning a profit off of nature – has proven elusive and even dangerous. Carbon offset schemes have become so concerning that the UN Rapporteur on Rights of Indigenous Peoples recently called for a moratorium to stop human rights violations resulting from these projects.
One of the few efforts to collect evidence-based data through the lens of financial actors and accountants was published by Contemporary Accounting Research in 2022: “Can Financialization Save Nature?” found that the “numerous attempts to financialize nature have been unsuccessful [yet] financialization projects continue to abound.”
This year, COP29 in Baku passed Article 6 clearing the way to fast-track market-based solutions for nature. The Nature Conservancy estimates we need up to $824 billion more annually by 2030, and far more for climate change. In a culture whose exploitation of nature for money is the problem, can such a conservation mindset give us any other answer? This is not to condemn future efforts, but the ‘fail forward’ strategy to justify ever larger and unaccountable funding flows needs to stop. The question is not how much more money did we get, but how much more conservation did we get?
What more compelling evidence is there than the fact that existing conservation mindsets lack diverse perspectives, innovation and financial ability to save nature? Ultimately the goal is for a conservation state of mind to permeate the culture, and for people to see their role and lifestyle as part of protecting nature, along with the social, political, and economic institutions to put these capital flows at the service of the well-being of people, biodiversity and nature.
Rebecca Adamson is an Indigenous economist and serves as Board Member Emeritus for Calvert Impact Capital.
Banner image: The Maasai communities of Kenya pass down traditional ecological knowledge through storytelling. Photo courtesy of Joan de la Malla.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Hear the author of this commentary expand on Wall Street’s attempts to financialize nature and Indigenous economics, click play here:
See related coverage:
How marine conservation benefits from combining Indigenous knowledge and Western science
Despite pledges, obstacles stifle community climate and conservation funding
Largest dam removal ever, driven by Tribes, kicks off Klamath River recovery
Credits
