
The year of 2022 may end up being a significant turning point for conservation in Australia with Australia pledging to protect and restore 30% of diverse land habitats under the [United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity](https://www.cbd.int/). The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures completed its [final draft framework](https://framework.tnfd.global/) with a dedicated Consultation Group for Australia & New Zealand. Additionally, the Australian government introduced a [Nature Repair Market Bill](https://theconversation.com/can-a-nature-repair-market-really-save-australias-environment-its-not-perfect-but-its-worth-a-shot-203126) to lay the foundations for a nature repair market that will aim to help restore landscapes and provide habitats for threatened species.

## What is a Nature Market?

Broadly speaking, the hope of nature markets is to [financialise the functions and capital of the natural world to better capture its true value and contribution to humanity](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review) (e.g., water purification, climate regulation, pollination, etc.). Currently, this value is nearly entirely disregarded in global financial systems. [Proponents of nature markets](https://theconversation.com/can-a-nature-repair-market-really-save-australias-environment-its-not-perfect-but-its-worth-a-shot-203126) hope that well designed and regulated nature markets will lead to more informed decision-making that better accounts for the full costs and benefits of human activities on the environment and thus preserves more of the natural world.

To cut to the chase, there are some serious [limitations with nature markets](https://theconversation.com/would-a-nature-repair-market-really-work-evidence-suggests-its-highly-unlikely-199975). However, there also exists the possibility that, if well-designed and properly regulated, these nature markets could play a role in achieving conservation goals.

Whether or not you are for or against the concept of nature markets, recognising and understanding these limitations is crucial step. So, first, the limitations.

## Limitations of Market-Based Approaches for Nature Conservation

### Government Accountability

Perhaps most importantly, nature markets should not be seen as not a replacement for strong environmental policy (e.g. proper regulation of land clearing) and significant government spending on conservation and environmental management. Establishing a voluntary market for Biodiversity Certificates in Australia is [unlikely to significantly safeguard the nation's remaining biodiversity values](https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/P1356-Beyond-Repair.pdf) because it fails to address the underlying causes of biodiversity decline. Instead, these policy experiments may only serve to further distract from the government's responsibility to effectively regulate land clearing, ensure environmental compliance, and properly fund conservation and environmental management programs. Nature is a public good. Relying on the private sector for funding, particularly in the context of [recent substantial tax cuts](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/who-gets-what-from-stage-three-tax-cuts-and-why-in-four-charts-20221006-p5bnm4), may only serve to further diminish governmental accountability.

### Poor Track Record

Ensuring integrity is difficult and similar offset markets, such as Victoria's Net Gain Accounting system, have been easily manipulated in the past [leading to continued environmental degradation](https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/publications-library/state-environment-2018-report). Similarly, schemes aimed at preserving forests for carbon offsets or credits have been plagued by [issues like human rights violations and questions over credibility](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe).

Ensuring market participants don't manipulate their plans or reporting to overstate their outcome will likely require extensive documentation, auditing, and oversight, but [scientifically credible environmental accounting standards are in development](https://www.accountingfornature.org/). Any financial market is susceptible to fraud, and the unique complexities of nature markets may create novel opportunities for deception and misconduct, but also opportunities for novel regulatory approaches.

### High Complexity and Transaction Costs

The complexity of the natural world makes it [extremely difficult](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yung-En-Chee/publication/222424799_An_ecological_perspective_on_the_valuation_of_ecosystem_services/links/5a1e3680a6fdccc6b7f8767d/An-ecological-perspective-on-the-valuation-of-ecosystem-services.pdf) to develop market infrastructure that can deliver desired natural outcomes. Even assuming we can accurately value nature, the cost of credibility and good governance may conflict with the returns sought by investors. Creating a nature repair market requires a complex governance framework, including measurement systems, certification, registration, trading, monitoring, reporting, accounting, auditing, and administration. This complexity can lead to high transaction costs, which may deter private investment in biodiversity credits. Indeed, the demand for voluntary credits remains largely untested and is [likely overestimated](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/28/pwc-walks-back-report-used-to-claim-australias-nature-repair-market-could-be-worth-137bn).

Accurately measuring biodiversity outcomes continues to be [subjective](20230107-environmental-ethic), complex, and resource-intensive and environmental outcomes may take years or even decades to materialise, making immediate verification difficult, but [new technologies provide some hope](/posts/20230525-the-robotic-revolution-in-conservation).

### Ethical Concerns

The very idea of financialising biodiversity may be [questioned on ethical grounds](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1929007). Market-based approaches may not take into account the cultural, spiritual, or community values associated with nature and biodiversity. The approach downplays the variety in ethical systems and different ways humans understand the value of nature, reducing all values to individual preferences. Different values that cannot be summed together are ignored, assuming away the normal state of incommensurability. Furthermore, market-based approaches prioritise those who can pay for conservation, potentially leading to unequal access to natural resources. This can exacerbate social inequalities, as wealthier individuals, corporations, or countries may have more influence over conservation decisions.

### Valuation Methods

There are [issues with the economic methods for valuing non-market goods](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1929007). For example, environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) methods have limited applicability and only apply to marginal changes, not large-scale changes like mass extinction or climate change. Such phenomena are complex, multifaceted, and often involve non-linear relationships and feedback loops. Similarly, the [Preference Valuation Method](https://www.ipbes.net/policy-support/tools-instruments/stated-preference-valuation) presents challenges, particularly when respondents may lack the essential information to make well-informed judgments about intricate environmental matters. This lack of understanding can lead to over or under-valued estimates, illustrating a potential gap between the values assigned in theoretical models and the actual challenges and complexities faced in real-world environmental conservation.

## Key Ingredients for a Nature Market

Prof. Hugh Possingham is currently the chief scientist of Accounting for Nature, and is a self-professed optimist when it comes to conversation and nature markets. In a talk he gave to Landcare Australia as part of the [Landcare Farming Webinar Series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl332PHdKFs) he offered the following requirements for a functional nature market, which sound sensible to me (even if they are difficult (impossible?) to achieve in practice due to the issues raised below).

### Verifiable Outcomes

The market must focus on rewarding outcomes rather than just actions or inputs. The actions taken must lead to tangible biodiversity outcomes, such as increasing native vegetation or the numbers of declining and threatened species.

### Additionality

The actions must be additional, meaning that they wouldn't have been undertaken without some sort of reward or incentive. Determining what is truly additional and what actions were already intended can be complex.

### No Leakage

"Leakage" refers to a situation where improvements in one area might lead to negative impacts in another. For example, someone might improve one part of their property and receive payments for it, only to use those funds to remove nature from other parts of their property, resulting in no net benefit across the landscape.

### Integrity of the Market

The market's integrity involves preventing things from going wrong, such as paying for things that aren't received or people getting paid for things they don't do. Ensuring the integrity of the market is described as one of the most challenging aspects.

## Conclusion

Many of the requirements of a functional nature market highlighted by Prof. Possingham help to provide focus to some of the key risks and limitations outlined.

Crafting regulations that are both effective and flexible enough to accommodate the diverse and dynamic nature of biodiversity can be a daunting task. Maintaining the confidence and trust of participants and the public will require transparency and accountability, which will be particularly important to foster in a complex and evolving market.

The world's first and largest market-based climate policy, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, [has now demonstrated](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3725482) that novel markets to address sustainability can work effectively when properly designed, as evidenced by the 14-16% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions among regulated manufacturing firms.

Personally, my main issue with nature markets has been an ethical one, which I have touched upon in [another post](/posts/20230107-environmental-ethic). But, ultimately, I believe well-implemented nature markets may be a useful tool (among others) in our efforts to abate the current biodiversity crisis.


Nature's Value in the Marketplace: Australia's New Conservation Program and the Complexities of Biodiversity Markets


Conservation suffers from inadequate resourcing at all levels. However, a transformative prospect emerges from the ongoing revolution in artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation. By harnessing these technologies, we can unlock efficiencies, reduce labour costs, and gather vital data to improve the management and preservation of our natural ecosystems. Despite the promise of these technologies, it will be crucial to navigate this double-edged sword carefully understand and mitigate any risks.

## Labour-saving automation

Automation offers reprieve from labour-intensive conservation tasks like reforestation and invasive species control. For example, autonomous robots that specialise in weeding could result in enormous productivity gains through improved weed detection and control coverage. Such advancements will free up other conservation resources for crucial pursuits, like public engagement and policy, enhancing conservation initiatives.

## Data collection and monitoring

The rise of robotics and artificial intelligence presents a unique opportunity to revolutionise data collection and monitoring in conservation. Remotely sensed data has already shown promise in monitoring vegetation, but with fully realised autonomous robots, we can gather intricate ground-level information about our ecosystems. The convergence of comprehensive, real-time data and informed decision-making will help design effective management plans and tailor strategies to support the long-term vitality of our natural systems.

## Balancing agricultural interests and conservation

While the potential benefits of robotics in conservation may be considerable there are also possible risks and challenges. Agriculture has also embraced automation, with drones being used for pesticide and fertiliser applications. However, these same cost savings applied to agricultural will decrease the financial barriers to farming previously marginal land. Agricultural automation's cost savings may inadvertently incentivise farming marginal lands, encroaching upon previously intact habitats. Negotiating such trade-offs in conservationists and agricultural interests through discourse and policy will be crucial to ensure that automation is used responsibly.

## Ethical Considerations and Preserving Biodiversity

These technologies hold the potential to assist in knowledge-intensive tasks like the identification of threatened species. However, the very tools that offer hope for safeguarding biodiversity can be swiftly directed at its destruction if not handled responsibly. The difference between a robot that avoids rather than targets a species is only one line of code. In the face of this technological revolution, we must tread cautiously, embracing the potential benefits while mitigating the risks. The capabilities of automation must be tempered with ethical judgment.

## Conclusion

No technology is inherently good or bad. I believe the future of conservation lies in embracing the power of robotics, artificial intelligence, and automation, but that we must approach the situation with caution. Ideally, sensible regulation will help to avoid some of the risks outlined. Insufficient regulation could lead to an arms race between powerful agricultural interests and under-resourced conservationists. I know who I would put my money on.


The robotic revolution in conservation


As I reflect on my journey towards making a meaningful impact in nature conservation, I find myself contemplating the choice between direct and indirect conservation outcomes. In this post, I will discuss the matter of whether to pursue direct conservation outcomes, such as protecting a certain percentage of habitat, or indirect outcomes, such as increasing the application of ecological knowledge among farm managers through beneficial insect management.

## The power of direct conservation

Direct conservation outcomes, such as protecting a specific percentage of habitat or saving a charismatic species, have undeniable appeal. The preservation of critical ecosystems and the safeguarding of endangered species contribute directly to biodiversity conservation. These outcomes often involve substantial efforts, such as land acquisition, restoration projects, and policy advocacy. While direct conservation efforts may take time to come to fruition, they offer the advantage of providing visible and measurable results, which can create a sense of immediate impact once the desired outcomes are achieved.

## Indirect outcomes: Enhancing ecological knowledge

Indirect conservation efforts are those that address underlying factors contributing to lower conservation outcomes, such as improving ecological literacy to improve societies engagement with nature, influencing individual decision-makers to support sensible conversation policy, or research and development to improve the efficacy or efficiency of conservation. Another, is increasing ecological knowledge among farmers to encourage the adoption of [practices that benefit both agricultural productivity and the environment](/posts/20230114-win-wins-for-conservation-and-farming). Having worked in pest management research for the better part of the last decade, I have been wondering whether I would have more impact to leverage this expertise or to more directly address conservation issues. I question the degree to which enhanced knowledge of the intricate interactions between farm pests, predators, chemicals, habitat, and management practices truly empowers farm managers to make decisions that holistically consider ecological linkages.

An ecological approach to farming highlights the interlinkages between farm pests, their predators, chemical use, habitat, and management practices, which can lead to more sustainable and environmentally friendly farming methods. This ecological mindset can have far-reaching consequences, such as a deeper appreciation of humanity's embedded dependence on the natural world, but also just the wonder and beauty of life on earth. In this way, ecological knowledge in regional communities can have a cascading effect on agricultural landscapes and beyond.

## Measuring impact

One of the challenges faced with indirect conservation efforts is the measurement of impact. The further removed the cause and effect, the more challenging it becomes to trace the direct relationship between them. Unlike direct outcomes that can be more easily quantified, such as the amount of protected habitat or the number of species saved, indirect outcomes may not have easily measurable metrics. However, there are ways to gauge the impact of indirect efforts and gain meaningful insights.

One can track the number of farmers who adopt sustainable practices as a result of increased ecological knowledge, or metrics of traffic to online resources. As farming practices become more sustainable and ecological engagement extends beyond production areas, improvements in landscape-level biodiversity indicators will eventually serve as a valuable measure of impact, but may be difficult to entangle from other factors influencing outcomes.

## Balancing the scales

Choosing between direct and indirect outcomes is not a matter of either/or, but rather finding a balance between the two that ideally plays to your own personal strengths and interests. Direct conservation efforts are essential for preserving crucial habitats and species, and indirect conservation, eventually, leads to more direct conservation activities. Increasing ecological knowledge among farmers, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and fostering the incorporation of beneficial insects can have far-reaching positive consequences, but it is difficult to estimate the return on investment.

Ultimately, the separation of direct and indirect outcomes is a false dichotomy and to me, at least, is only relevant psychologically. There is a good chance I would have made a larger contribution to conservation if I had pursued a more lucrative career in corporate business or finance and donated the excess to those who could put the money to good use. But I like to spend more of my time in a view more proximate to what I am hoping to protect.


Reflecting on indirect conservation efforts


In recent years, the concept of "win-win" solutions for environmental conservation and profitable farming has gained traction as a seemingly ideal way to balance competing interests. The idea is that by finding mutually beneficial solutions, conservation goals can be achieved while also promoting farm profitability. But is it really possible to balance conservation and food production in a way that truly benefits both? [A recent meta-analysis](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01013) spanning 43 studies across 18 countries found that the diversification of food production systems led to win-wins in only 23% of cases. In this blog post, we will examine the merits and limitations of win-win solutions for conservation and farming, going beyond the rhetoric to explore the realities of this approach.

## What are win-wins for farming and conservation?

Win-wins are situations where environmental conservation, as well as farming businesses can benefit. They are often presented as mutually beneficial solutions where one goal is not achieved at the expense of the other. These solutions aim to balance competing interests by identifying opportunities for both conservation and farming to coexist and thrive. Some examples methods that aim to improve conservation and farming outcomes are reviewed in the following.

### Agroforestry

This practice involves integrating trees into farming systems, which can improve biodiversity, soil health, water management, and carbon sequestration. Additionally, agroforestry can provide additional income for farmers through products such as fruits, nuts, and non-timber forest products. [A meta analysis](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-019-0589-8) has shown that agroforestry can improve ecosystem services without sacrificing crop productivity. In contrast, many farming systems are deliberately simplified, such as broad acre cropping, in order to make use of highly specialised farming equipment.

Barriers to implementing agroforestry are the significant investment of time, money, and resources to establish and maintain a more complex and diverse farming system. Additionally, agroforestry may require changes to traditional farming practices and may not be well-suited to certain types of land or crops.

### Conservation tillage

This practice involves reducing or eliminating the disturbance of soil through tillage, which can improve soil health, water retention, and biodiversity. Additionally, conservation tillage can reduce costs for farmers by reducing fuel and labour inputs. In Australia, no-till cropping began to gain popularity in the 1970s and 1980s as a way to address soil erosion and improve crop yields. Today, no-till cropping is widely adopted in Australia, and [has been widely acknowledged](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J064v23n03_06) to improve soil health, increase crop yields, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers. In contrast, conventional farming systems that rely on heavy tillage can lead to soil erosion and compaction which can negatively impact biodiversity and soil health.

Barriers to adopting conservation tillage include novel pests, such as earwigs, millipedes, slugs, and slaters, favoured by stubble retention. Thick stubble loads can also clog machinery used during the crop sowing.

### Cover crops

Planting cover crops between cash crops can improve soil health, reduce erosion, and increase biodiversity. Conventional farming systems, in contrast, often leave fields barren between cash crops which can lead to erosion, soil compaction and loss of biodiversity. Cover crops can provide additional income for farmers through products such as forage, biofuel, and compost. Cover crops have been claimed to improve soil health, increase crop yields, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. However, [new research](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16489) may suggest cover cropping can reduce corn and soybean yields in the US, and could lead to expanded cultivation and habitat loss to make up for the yield reductions.

Barriers to adopting cover cropping include uncertainty around improved farming outcomes, potential water loss through increased evapotranspiration, and additional management complexity surrounding multiple crops.

### Integrated pest management (IPM)

This approach to pest control involves using a combination of methods to reduce pest populations, including biological control, cultural control, and minimal use of chemical pesticides. Conventional farming systems, in contrast, are heavily reliant on chemical pesticides that harm beneficial insects, and negatively impact biodiversity. Integrated pest management can reduce costs for farmers, while improving environmental outcomes through a reduced reliance on pesticide use. [A meta analysis](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/6/1/152) of 85 IPM projects spanning 24 countries found that mean yield increased across projects and crops by 40.9% (SD 72.3), while pesticide use declined to 30.7% (SD 34.9) compared with baseline. A total of 35 of 115 (30%) crop combinations resulted in a transition to zero pesticide use.

Barriers to the adoption of IPM include the increased complexity and knowledge requirements in managing diverse beneficial and pest species, as well as the uncertainty surrounding required beneficial abundances that will mitigate economic losses in production.

### Buffer strips

This practice involves planting strips of vegetation, such as grasses or wildflowers, along the edges of fields and streams. In many conventional farming situations, cropping verges are left bare or support weeds. These buffer strips can improve water quality by reducing run off and erosion, and can also provide habitats for a variety of wildlife species.

Barriers to adoption include the added complexity of managing additional crops, and the [inconsistent effects of non-crop habitats on pest and beneficial communities](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1800042115).

### Adaptive multi-paddock grazing

This practice involves moving livestock to different pastures at different times to allow for rest and recovery of the land. Conventional practices, typically involve large paddock sizes, lower herd densities, and less frequent rotation. In adaptive multi-paddock grazing, multiple paddocks are used per herd with the goal of managing grazing resources to improve ecological function. This can result in improved soil health, biodiversity, and water management. Additionally, this method of grazing can improve animal health and increase milk and meat production. A overview of the approach and its benefits are [available here](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187/full).

Barriers to adoption include the increased complexity surrounding management of small paddocks and more frequent movement of stock. There is also [significant controversy surrounding the scientific merits](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/) of similar grazing programs.

### Sustainable intensification

This approach involves increasing crop yields and productivity through technologies such as precision agriculture, robotics, or genetic modification, while reducing environmental impacts such as pollution, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. As noted by [Cassman and Grassini](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0507-8), while sustainable intensification is necessary to address environmental conservation goals, it is not sufficient because success in conserving natural habitat also requires good governance, appropriate legal frameworks for land tenure, and international agreements to ensure that progress towards sustainable intensification on existing farmland achieves desired environmental outcomes.

Barriers to wider adoption include the economic costs and knowledge required to implement technological solutions in farming.

### Organic farming

Organic farming is an approach to agriculture that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides widely used in conventional farming systems. Organic farming can improve environmental outcomes by reducing synthetic inputs and pollution, and through a greater reliance on biological solutions. Additionally, organic farming can improve farm profitability by reducing costs and increasing market demand for organic products. While [studies have found organic farming is frequently associated with lower yields, they tend to be more profitable due to the higher prices organic produce attracts](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1423674112). [A recent meta study](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00082/full) concluded that organic farms reliably promote biotic abundance, biotic richness, soil carbon, and profitability compared with conventional farms, but conventional farms generally produced higher yields.

Barriers to wider adoption include the lower typical yields achieved and difficulties in sourcing organic solutions to problems like pests, weeds, and diseases.

### Social licence

Social license can be a potential win-win for farming and conservation if it is effectively implemented and balanced. Social license refers to the acceptance and support of a specific activity or project by the local community and stakeholders. It is also the public acknowledgement that farming land comprises a large proportion of our environment. In the context of farming and conservation, it means that farmers and conservationists can work together to find mutually beneficial solutions that balance the needs of food production with the protection of natural resources. For example, farmers may adopt conservation practices that improve the health of natural resources and biodiversity, while conservationists may support the development of sustainable food production systems.

However, achieving a true win-win scenario through social license is not always easy, it requires a lot of work and good faith from all parties involved. It requires a deep understanding of the needs and priorities of the different stakeholders, and a willingness to negotiate and find common ground. It also requires adequate resources, such as funding and technical support, to implement the necessary changes. In addition, social license may not always be a win-win, as there may be inherent trade-offs and compromises required to find a balance between conservation and food production.

### Dam biodiversity

When dams are used as water storage for livestock, there can be risks associated with the water quality that may decrease livestock health. Encouraging dam biodiversity can help to improve water quality by supporting the growth of aquatic plants, which can help to filter pollutants and improve the overall health of the water. Vegetation can also improve the flow of water and reduce sedimentation. Together, these changes can result in increased livestock health, improved weight gain, and higher profitability [according to recent research](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256089). Besides livestock health, dam biodiversity can help to support a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial species, which can increase the overall environmental values of the area.

Despite these benefits, encouraging dam biodiversity can be a costly process, requiring significant investments in infrastructure, equipment, and personnel. This may be a barrier for some organisations and communities that lack the resources to invest in these efforts. However, the return on investment may be positive [in many Australian situations](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256089).

## Can farming save the environment?

Compared to farms, natural ecosystems are far more biodiverse, with richer ecological interactions and processes, and a greater resilience to environmental changes. In contrast, farms are generally designed to support the production of specific crops and domesticated animals, which reduces the overall diversity and complexity from the natural ecosystems they have replaced. While sustainable food production is worthy goal, I don't think it can (or should) replace environmental conservation efforts. Taking a monocultural and chemically sterilised crop from one species to multi-species crop with improved soil biodiversity and beneficial insects is a big improvement. However, even the most sustainable farm is highly simplified in terms of biodiversity and function when compared to a natural ecosystem.

I think the concept of win-wins may be more accurately framed as trade-offs. recently read a [manuscript by McShane et al. (2011)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320710001849) who wrote:

> Win–win scenarios, where both natural resources are conserved and human well-being is improved in specific places over time, have been difficult, if not almost impossible, to realize. Compromise, contestation and conflict are more often the norm. Often hard choices need to be made between different kinds of conservation, and between conservation and human well-being, and these should be explicitly acknowledged. Not to do so leads to unrealized expectations and ultimately unresolved conflict. Conservationists need to make greater efforts to more effectively consider trade-off choices between different points-of-view, determine at what levels biodiversity loss is acceptable, mitigate human costs, and broaden the decision-making process. At the same time, development that ignores the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems and natural resources will ultimately prove unsustainable. The challenge for the conservation and development community is to engage in a social process that allows for compromise and the explicit acknowledgement of risks and costs, while at the same time gaining ever more clarity and purpose regarding those things that should not be traded off.”

So can farming save the environment? I guess it depends on the kind of environment you want to save. In [another blog post](/posts/20230107-environmental-ethic), I wrote about the importance of acknowledging that different people want to conserve different things according to what they value.

Nevertheless, I think the extent to which sustainable farming can contribute to biodiversity conservation is an important issue that I will try to better address in another blog post.


Recent Posts

Nature's Value in the Marketplace: Australia's New Conservation Program and the Complexities of Biodiversity Markets

Read more

The robotic revolution in conservation

Read more

Reflecting on indirect conservation efforts

Read more

Win-win solutions for conservation and farming

Read more