Barry Hunter: Look, I think the summit, and there’s a lot of criticism towards the Australian government, and I do wanna commend them on the work that they’ve done bringing this together. But it doesn’t forsake that some of the criticism sits there around what does global nature positive actually mean? Like being able to on one hand say that we’re addressing the intricate and massive issues that we have to deal with around this space. Are we actually in positive doing that, or are we starting from a deficit? So yeah, like I like to be always the half glass full and say that we’re dealing with positives. But, yeah, there’s always that doubt in the back of anyone’s mind.

Mike DiGirolamo (narration): Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast. I’m your cohost Mike DiGirolamo. Bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists and activists. Working on the front lines of conservation. Shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet. And holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal land. Today on the Newscast, I take you inside the world’s first Global Nature Positive Summit. Which was hosted in Sydney, Australia at the ICC theater. Led by the Australian government, the summit brought together leaders, experts, scientists, and NGOs from around the world to discuss biodiversity protection, meeting the goals outlined in the Global Biodiversity Framework that were agreed to at COP 15 in Montreal, private investment and other market-based instruments, such as carbon or biodiversity credits. In this episode, I interview two delegates to the convention, as well as a conservation scientist for their take on how the summit went, how they feel about the state of biodiversity. The ’30×30′ goals outlined in Kunming-Montreal, Australia’s track record with environmental protection, and what kind of action they want to see now. Australia’s minister of environment and water, Tanya Plibersek, stated back in 2022 that there wasn’t “another minute to waste” to reform Australia’s environmental laws, which many experts, including the minister herself have said are broken. But nearly two years on, reforms to the EPBC act, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act have not come to pass. And while the minister announced that Australia would be expanding its marine protected areas by over 300,000 square kilometers and thus protecting over 52% of its ocean, experts have told the Guardian that figure is misleading. Now when the minister first released her Nature Positive plan in December of 2022, she set a target of zero extinctions and a stronger emissions reduction target with a clear path to net zero among many other aspirations. Yet that same month Australia had 116 new coal oil and gas projects planned and she approved three coal mine extensions just last month. And 400 kilometers from Sydney and new south Wales the forestry corporation is commencing logging in a habitat for some of the most endangered and iconic marsupials on the continent, the greater glider and koala. Many of these actions from the labor government and the minister had been characterized as hypocrisy as reported on in the Guardian. As a journalist attending the summit, I looked for any kind of acknowledgement or comment from the government on these conflicting actions and how they’re being perceived by the public. But I did not see any. I reached out to the minister two weeks in advance of the summit to get her comment but was not granted an interview. The people I did interview for this podcast, however, provided their insight, knowledge, and recommendations about what it means to take action and make good on conservation promises for the people that steward the land and the environment. First, I interviewed Barry Hunter, a descendant of the Djabugay, people and CEO of the Indigenous led nonprofit, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance. He spoke in the opening plenary and mentioned that what really needs to happen is action. So, Barry gave me his thoughts on what taking action looks like specifically to honor the aspirations of Indigenous and First Nations people in Australia.

Barry: Barry Hunter, I’m the Chief Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance.

Mike: And you mentioned in the panel that you spoke in that the biggest takeaway for you is that it’s time for action. So, what does this action look like?

Barry: Anywhere in Australia, particularly across the North that I know of there are Indigenous land and sea rangers who are actively on Country doing work that we speak of, in terms of in broader sense at forums such as this, so that’s really the tire hitting the road. There’s real stuff happening there, so it’s around being able to, ensure that those sort of things can continue and the real biodiversity values that we see on Country and nature, that we see on Country and that on Country term refers to the broader environment where people are connected. Because Country isn’t really anything without people connection to it. and interacting and sometimes we do harmful things to it, but sometimes we try and assist nature in repairing and, the, that incredible work. So yeah, that’s what I’m talking about, that there’s real things happening in real time. And it’s being able to continually support those real investments and we know we hear these sort of figures around 200 billion, that’s required annually to address global biodiversity decline. So how do we maneuver those? And those aspects and that resource, to get people to real action on the ground. And that’s what I’m really advocating for and pushing for. We’ve got that many frameworks for that many plans. We’ve got a whole lot of different strategies that speak to action, but none of them are and he’s good unless people are out there actually doing the work.

Mike: So, in your work with the North Australian Land and Sea Management Alliance, your organization uses a culture based economy approach. Can you explain more about what that is?

Barry: So, specifically, that’s about, supporting those groups that I spoke of on the ground, and there’s more. It’s not necessarily just the Indigenous Land and Sea Centers, but we also work with organizations that may have a whole lot of aspiration and very little capacity and capability, but they’ve got some good sound governance and we do have a criteria around that. So that work is particular is, around supporting and building those aspects so that those organizations can then build that cultural based economy. And that cultural based economy is based on their aspirations. So how do they ensure income in and around ecosystem services? How do they ensure income for the governance work that they need to do in bringing people’s voices into those particular realms. And it’s also about being able to build frameworks so that we can push back into the likes of government and other environmental NGOs to say, “Hey, this work is going. Why don’t you jump behind it and support it?” But based on the cultural aspirations of those groups, rather than based on some top-down approach that, that government or environmental NGOs may bring into it.

Mike: And speaking of these frameworks that are being agreed to, such as the Kunming Montreal Agreement, Indigenous rights experts have pointed out that the Kunming Montreal Agreement has little clarity on how achieving the 30 by 30 goals will impact Indigenous communities. And some are saying that millions could be evicted from their ancestral lands if these goals aren’t implemented carefully. So, what are your thoughts on the GBF and the lack of clarity on how it will impact Indigenous communities?

Barry: Yeah. And I do want to quote that figure that’s on the Global Biodiversity Framework website, as well as the CBD website that talk around 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity is on lands that are stewarded by Indigenous peoples. So obviously, there’s a strong role for Indigenous peoples to play within that process. I, think within those words is the clarity around the details. Obviously, you can’t have and for me you can’t have land without people and I already said that. And you can’t have biodiversity outcomes that improve and repair nature or regenerate nature without people. So, it’s critical and for Indigenous peoples to play that lead role within that on their lands. And I guess that imposition of external forces to be able to shift people off land is not serving anyone, least of all what people are trying to address in regards to those, critical issues that we know biodiversity is facing There’s a strong saying within Australia that, Country needs people but it’s also the same in the opposite as well, that people need Country to be able to meet those needs and aspirations and obligations, there’s strong cultural obligations that people have to be able to look after Country.

Mike: There’s a been a lot of mention of markets here at the summit and conservationists and scientists have criticized and expressed concerns over things such as biodiversity credits or carbon credits, which have many documented instances of failing to live up to their promises. Are you concerned about the integrity and implementation of these? And if so, how could they be done justly and effectively in your view?

Barry: Yes, I am concerned of that integrity around that space. And I do want to get something really clear and that’s, that when systems are built and there’s some level of compliance in order, and rigor, in order to make that system sound and workable and acceptable, to say that there’s sound outcomes in regards to what’s being said and achieved within either the credit or the offset. But the important thing is not to confuse compliance with integrity. Because people will go “Oh, we’ve done this and this we’ve got integrity.” No, you’ve done this and this so you’re compliant which is a big difference. The integrity speaks to the social and cultural and indeed environmental outcomes that we see that would need to come out of any sort of those processes and that integrity within that space talks to, again, what I just said about people being connected to Country, people playing a strong role. And their aspirations are being met in terms of being able to look after the obligations they have to look after Country.

Mike: And on that note, Free Prior and Informed Consent, or FPIC, isn’t currently enforced adequately in any nation, including this one, but it’s part of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Barry, what are your thoughts on Australia’s record of consulting First Nations? What do you think the Country needs to do to better ensure that First Nations are consulted about matters that impact them, their land and their culture.

Barry: Yeah, and that’s an interesting term and that you just use around consulting because for me that has various connotations in terms of if someone walks up to me and talks to me about an issue in relation to say the biodiversity framework, then they’ve consulted with me. Was I informed? Within regards to the principles of FPIC? Those things need to be constantly reinforced and need to be constantly a part of processes. So that they’re not second to process or they’re not additional to processes. They ‘re ingrained within processes. And those processes talk to, in this case, Indigenous people totally being informed and aware of what they’re entering into, and then aware of the outcomes that, they need to be part of the solutions as well, we’re in that so yeah. I sort of shiver and sometimes when I hear those words being spoken, like there are some sort of, “Oh, we need to do FPIC”, Well, no.. you need to integrate, you need to show and you need to demonstrate some clear results and understandings in regards to that process and those words.

Mike: Are there any projects that you’re currently working on right now that you’re particularly excited about that you’d like to highlight?

Barry: Yeah, so the Indigenous Country Biodiversity Alliance is bringing together four strong Indigenous organisations and we cover large tracts of Country across Northern Australia. And those organisations include the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, Kimberley Land Council, NAILSMA, my organisation, North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance and the Indigenous Desert Alliance and we’re looking at developing methods that may go to ecosystem services or the legislation we’ve got in Australia around the nature repair and those methods are Indigenous led and Indigenous informed and the aim is to be able to create the space for those methods to then turn into projects that can be granted certificates under the Nature Repair. And indeed, then hopefully, the intent is to, is for those type of processes to create you know, wealth creation opportunities or extra investment into those things in terms of on ground outcomes and paying for that. So yeah, that’s really exciting. I’m really excited and there’s a lot of power. And like I said we cover large tracts of Australia in terms of what we’re doing and the process that we’re, doing and our organizations are understandably Indigenous led organizations with all Indigenous chief executive officers and we’ve been working on building the governance and then within the governance, then being able to build the process to start incubating the methods and then work with communities so that those methods can grow and prosper and, they, and they still have the same rigor. We have scientists involved in those process and we have Indigenous knowledge leaders involved in those processes. So, we can bring all those things together to have a sound process and the sound methods and, then, ultimately you have extra income. So that Indigenous communities can continue the good work that they’re doing.

Mike: Do you have any concluding thoughts about the summit?

Barry: Look, I think the summit, and there’s a lot of criticism towards the Australian government, and I do wanna commend them on the work that they’ve done when bringing this together. But it doesn’t forsake that some of the criticism sits there around what does global nature positive actually mean? Like being able to on one hand say that we’re addressing the intricate and massive issues that we have to deal with around this space. Are we actually in positive doing that, or are we starting from a deficit? So yeah, like I like to be always the half glass full and say that we’re dealing with positives. But, yeah, there’s always that, that doubt in the back of anyone’s mind. But look, I think there’s some amazing discussions. I think there’s some amazing thought processes that are coming out. And, as we started off the conversation, for me, it was always about saying these sort of things can go on and we can continue to talk about it, but we need to show that action on the ground and we need to get moving with it.

Mike: Barry, thank you so much for your time. It’s been a pleasure speaking with you.

Barry: Thank you, Mike.

Mike (narration): I also spoke with Eliane Ubalijoro the CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry. She previewed an initiative to track and measure not just the ecological impact of their work, but the social as well. A key consideration when considering the justice and integrity of the 30×30 goals

Eliane: I’m Eliane Ubalijoro. I’m the CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF. So, we work all over the world, particularly in Asia/Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. And so, our work is really focused on nature-based solutions and on tree based systems. So, we work in agroforestry, forestry, and soil health. And so, our work really focuses on how do we harness nature based solutions at the interface of forestry, agriculture, and the corridors for nature needed to bring back a nature positive world.

Mike: And so, you mentioned in the plenary that you just spoke in that you had some different ways of measuring not just, tree cover and biodiversity, but also the social impacts for local and Indigenous communities. Can you talk about those?

Eliane: Yes. So, within CIFOR-ICRAF, we have a governance, equity, and social inclusion piece where we have a team that really focuses on how do we make sure we’re looking at the social factors. It’s really critical that we look at natural capital and bringing back biodiversity while we sequester carbon, but we also need to make sure we’re also looking at human and social capital. And so, we have anthropologists, we have gender experts, we have experts that work with Indigenous populations, and we really look at how do we center people in the work we do, how do we center equity in the work we do. So it’s really critical for us that as we do this work, we really ensure that we’re understanding how our marginalized community is showing up, how do we ensure that their voices are amplified, and how do we ensure that whenever possible, if our science is a tool that can be used that we create frameworks where they can learn how to harness the tools we have in terms of better negotiating conditions, because what we really promote is how do we ensure that there’s projects have high integrity carbon, high integrity biodiversity and high integrity community benefits. And to ensure that we really need to ensure that we bring all the populations that are involved to the table.

Mike: Some Indigenous groups and activists have voiced concerns about the Kunming Montreal agreement in terms of its impact on local Indigenous communities, with some saying that potentially millions could be evicted from their ancestral lands. What do you think about these concerns and the lack of clarity in Kunming Montreal and how it will impact Indigenous communities?

Eliane: We know that Indigenous communities steward 80 percent of the biodiversity on the Earth at CIFOR-ICRAF, what we see as really critical is how we work with Indigenous communities in understanding how are the best ways we need to work forward to really look at how are we integrating biodiversity in nature based solutions, in our food systems, and how to respect the social cultural biodiversity that Indigenous populations bring to the table. And in our work in Brazil we really see this as very critical to have that leadership of the Indigenous voices in the work we do, and to really ensure that the work we do respects that social cultural biodiversity, and that in how we’re practicing agroforestry, we’re really creating systems that bring back nature, that respect Indigenous culture, that respect ways of knowing that are local, and that we integrate those ways in the work we do.

Mike: And do you have any concluding thoughts about what has transpired here at the summit?

Eliane: The summit is very exciting because we, for somebody like me, it’s like a nature positive net zero world is the aspiration. It’s the work we do every day. And so, knowing that the Australian government is taking leadership in this space to have convened this event, I think for me is a really important testament to the leadership that is being taken in the regent and to really have it amplified and moved forward as the three COPS happen this year. And as we move towards 2025 in Belem.

Mike: Eliane, thank you so much for speaking with me. It was a pleasure.

Eliane: Pleasure. Thank you.

Mike (narration): Hello, once again, I hope you’re enjoying this coverage of the Global Nature Positive Summit. And thank you as always for tuning in and listening to the Mongabay Newscast. I just wanted to give you a little reminder to please subscribe to us on the podcast provider of your choice or keep up to date on all things Mongabay by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, which you can do by clicking on the button in the upper right hand corner on the landing page at mongabay.com. Thanks as always and now back to the summit. Lastly, I spoke with Dr. Ben Pitcher from the Taronga Conservation Society on a visit to Sydney’s flagship zoo. Pitcher is a behavioral and sensory ecologist who has done a lot of work studying the regent honey eater, a critically endangered bird that Pitcher tells me will be the litmus test for whether or not the Australian government will make good on their promise of no new extinctions.

Ben: I’m Dr. Ben Pitcher. I’m behavioral biologist at Taronga Conservation Society, and I work on the science around our recovery programs, and particularly things like the regent honey eater.

Mike: And so, you were talking to us earlier about the regent honey eater and you described it as the litmus test of the Australian government’s policy on no new extinctions. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Ben: That’s right. The regent honey eater is a critically endangered species. We know there’s only about 250 of them left in the wild. And despite 25 years of recovery program, the population is still declining. If we are to have no new extinctions, this is one of the species that’s going to be the test. Our population modelling has shown that if we don’t turn the species around in the next five years, we’ve only got about 20 years of this species left with us.

Mike: And you mentioned that it was like an umbrella species for, other species as well, in terms of the protection of it. Can you explain more about that?

Ben: That’s right. The regent honeyeater is reliant on boxgum, grassy woodland, which is one of the habitats that we’ve cleared the most in Australia. Unfortunately, we’re still clearing that as well, which is, really one of the things that we need to halt if we are to protect this species. But that habitat is also critical habitat for a host of other threatened species that are in Australia that we know that if we don’t protect them, the likelihood of them going extinct in 50 years, in 100 years, sorry, is about 50%. Putting the effort into protecting the regent honeyeater now will have those flow on effects for those other species as well.

Mike: You mentioned that every, now correct me if I’m wrong, you mentioned that every species in the zoo that is threatened has a 50-50 chance. What do you mean by that?

Ben: Yeah, so that’s every threatened species in New South Wales, in the state of New South Wales has been assessed and about 50 percent of those species will likely go extinct within 100 years unless we really ramp up our conservation efforts. So if we continue business as usual, we’re going to lose half of this, the threatened species in the state.

Mike: And so, what does that look like then if we don’t continue business as usual? What does it specifically look like if we’re actually making good on that promise?

Ben: Well, particularly for a species like the regent honey eater, first and foremost, outside of the zoo is habitat protection. We really need to tighten up our land clearing and consider every piece of remaining regent Honeyeater habitat as critical habitat that needs to be protected. We need to also increase the habitat we have, so restoration projects, increasing connectivity in those habitats. Beyond that, we need to increase the capacity in our recovery program. So, we breed birds here at the zoo and at other zoos around Australia, but we need to basically double that capacity so that we still have a good insurance population in the zoo and have the capacity to be releasing birds into the wild. And then thirdly, we really need to increase recruitment of birds in the wild. One of the big threats to the regent honeyeater is now that their population has gotten so small, is competition and predation from other species. And that’s pressures that, if the population was healthy, they’d be able to sustain. Because they’re so small, that’s really causing problems. We need to be on the ground managing those populations. And it’s not a pick and mix lolly store where we can say, “Oh, let’s do this a little bit. Let’s do that a little bit.” The modeling has shown us that if we really want to save this species, we have to do everything that we have in that list to save this species. We can’t just say, let’s do this a little bit now. And we’ll wait 10 years to do that other bit. It’s everything today.

Mike: Something that got talked about a lot at the summit appears to be, markets and credits and offsets and like this financialization of nature. And there wasn’t a whole lot of like talk about making new protected areas per se. So, what’s your opinion on like the biodiversity offset market as a vehicle for conservation?

Ben: I’m certainly not an expert on it, so it’s just my opinion. However. When it comes to a species like the regent honeyeater, if we’re talking about offsetting habitat loss, we can’t afford it. That habitat is so valuable. There’s no monetary value that we can, put on that because this species will be extinct in 20 years if we don’t do something. If we let habitat be cleared, take money and build habitat somewhere else, it’s going to be 20 years before that habitat is viable. So, from that point of view, I don’t think offsets are a good move for this sort of species. However, that being said, a species like this that is nomadic and ranges across such a wide area cannot be protected solely on conservation lands. So, it’s a species that requires protection across a whole range of tenures. So, from that, we need buy in from a whole pile of people. So, money and investment and conservation on private lands, on business owned lands and everything, all of that is essential.

Mike: Is it fair to say that this is the case for lots of species?

Ben: Absolutely. Absolutely. I focus on the regent honeyeater because that’s the one I work on. But if we walk down the corridor and spoke to one of my other colleagues here at the zoo, they would tell you a very similar story for a small mammal or for a frog. And, when, you hear that story over and over again, it really does, have those flashing lights saying we have to do this now. No new extinctions is a great target to have. That’s the target we should have. to do that, there’s actually a lot of work behind that and a lot of investment and commitment because, that’s not a small task for any one species. That’s not a small task and we’ve got, just within the zoo here alone, we’ve got, tens of species that applies to and that’s here at Taronga, and you go and look at another zoo in Australia, you’ve got the same story, you look internationally, you’ve got the same story, it’s a global scale to, going beyond Australia’s commitment, going to a global commitment, we can do it if we invest in it, we’re a rich world, but we just need to make that commitment.

Mike: So, something that was said early on in the current government’s administration was that we can’t waste another minute to reform our broken environmental laws. But we’ve seen delays on reforms to the EPBC Act. Do you have any thoughts about that?

Ben: Again, I’m not a, I’m not a policy expert, so I don’t know the fine details. However, I would, I would welcome revision to the policy because we’ve learned a lot in the time that we’ve had the policy. The EPBC Act, I remember when I was in high school when, it came in and at the time it was considered groundbreaking and fantastic environmental law. But, in any environmental situation, it’s not a set and forget sort of thing, we know a lot more now than we did when it came in. And so, it’s fair to say, yes, let’s revise this policy. Beyond that though, we don’t have to wait for that policy to be revised in order to take action for these, species. We’ve, for each of these species that we, know are in trouble, we’ve got recovery plans. We’ve got population modeling. We know what we need to do. We just need the commitment to do it.

Mike: Ben, thank you so much for speaking with me.

Ben: Absolute pleasure. Thank you.

Mike (narration): The opening song featured in this podcast is from a Yidaki, played in the Welcome to Country ceremony by Darran Williams. For related Mongabay coverage of the Kunming Montreal agreement and Australian biodiversity offsets, and critically endangered species, please see the links in the show notes. As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay Newscast or any of our podcast content and you want to help us out we encourage you to spread the word about the work we’re doing by telling a friend. Word of mouth is the best way to help expand our reach, but you can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor via our Patreon page at patreon.com/Mongabay. We are a nonprofit news outlet. So that means a dollar per month makes a pretty big difference and it helps us offset the production costs. So, if you’re a fan of our audio reports from nature’s frontline, go to patreon.com/Mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay Newscast and all of our podcast content. You and your friends can join the listeners who have downloaded the Mongabay Newscast over half a million times by subscribing to this podcast wherever you get your podcasts from, or you can download our app for Apple and Android devices. Just search either app store for the Mongabay Newscast app to gain fingertip access to new shows and all of our previous episodes. But you can also read our news and inspiration from nature’s frontline at mongabay.com. Or you can follow us on social media. Find Mongabay via our accounts on LinkedIn at Mongabay News and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, Facebook and TikTok. Where our handle is @ Mongabay or on YouTube @Mongabay TV. Thank you as always for listening.