Can ecosystem restoration projects in rich, imperialist countries actually lead to a net reduction in global biodiversity? Is the 'environmentalism of the rich' actually damaging global biodiversity?
I think the issues you laid out here are exactly why we need less of this preservation/human-free approach to conservation. My particular interest is in where conservation and agriculture intersect. SO much is possible in that space. I’m in North America, and here we have dozens, if not hundreds, of easy-to-grow, highly nutritious, and very palatable native plants that most people don’t even know are food. I am certain that highly productive systems that are majority or even entirely native plants can be designed in most, probably all bioregions.
The limiting factor is, as you mentioned in the piece, the fact that this will require diet changes and massive reworking of agricultural systems and labor. The cultural and economic barriers to this shift are massive, but I don’t think it’s hopeless. I think creating more and more demonstration projects to test designs and show folks what is possible can do a lot to show people what’s possible.
Thanks for the kind words! And yes not sure if i directly ref'd his work in this article or not now, but in most of my articles I end u p ref'ing him at some point as been very influenced by it!
What I find so infuriating is the fact that degraded land which is privately owned in many cases is not part of the solution, Huge sections of the US Europe and Australia are in poor condition and we neglect these relatively easy gains instead outsource the environmental problems we have created to other countries. Cashed strapped farmers do not have the time or capital in many cases but the repair of degraded land allows for environmental and ecological benefits way beyond the boarders of the individual farm.
Yes to this: "too often mainstream environmentalism focuses on the damage that humans2 cause, and specifically certain groups of humans, rather than on the underlying social relations that have given rise to these practices in the first place."
There are indeed some deep places we can and should go with that.
And of course the markets are incapable of going there, as you say.
I'll just add that the term "restoration" is pretty nebulous too, which allows it to be captured by corporate interests. I think it has distinctly different shades of meaning in the UK vs the US too. As someone who writes about these topics too, I've actually been realizing I should define what I mean when I use it, but that this might be trickier than it seems. I'm curious how you see it.
yeah that's totally fair — if you write anything on this I'd be interested to read. There's various terms that can be used and all seem to have their pitfalls. For me, it would be about, and this is admittedly general, improving the quality of watercourses measures by eg plant life and aquatic life, improving soils so that they are "living", much greater plant biodiversity in a pasture, ideally something more like a wildflower meadow (not sure how well that idea travels to the US), or if we're talking about trees, then greater diversity of tree species, fungi, other plant life etc. (say versus a conifer plantation). More birds, more butterflies, more insects etc. I'm not an ecologist, so my understanding comes from 10 years of farming, permaculture, agroecology, and that side of things more than the side of conservation, rewilding etc. Like our biodiversity in the UK is so low that it's not hard to push things in the right direction. But that tension for me has to be with increasing and not reducing food production - and doing so through agroecological methods, or at least genuinely regenerative agriculture. I'm not against there being "wild" places, I just am sceptical about what's actually happening and the consequences of it, but very much criticisms based on these islands and wouldn't want to comment on specifics elsewhere much.
You could mention the environmental and sociological damage done by the creation of and export of huge food surpluses and food aid, destroying rural economies worldwide.
And small scale farming can be more productive and ecologically friendly than large scale (and my farm is an example.)
This is a very cogent piece, Alex. Thank you for taking the time to put it together and share it with us. I live on Raasay, in the thick of rural sheep/land/biodiversity dynamics. It’s definitely complex in the micro and macro.
I’m a depth psychologist (former gas engineer) who has worked with conservation to help conservationists try and understand how their own forms of fundamentalism often drive the issues they say they wish to address…(planting a vision - guardian, a few years back) and help them begin meaningful and collaborative conversations. It takes time (about two years for meaningful foundations and mutual respect to appear, and after 5 - a true generative alliance forms across all former divides - not best buddies, but open-minded engagement and dialogue.
And, I wonder where we draw lines and differentiate - and I’m reluctant to say this ‘out loud’, and am horrified at the UK’s and US’s willful complicity in genocide - deeply troubling, not just because of the consequences in the mid-east, but what that says about us as a species… yet the conflict we see engulfing the world is in the main driven by monotheistic judeo christian belief systems - where the deep rupture between humans and the earth first emerged, the earth now collateral damage in the face of what psychologically is a death cult - by way of pathological and systemic dissociation.
Anything downstream of that deep structure pathology engulfing the collective will always be ‘shuffling the deckchairs' to a lesser or greater degree…in short, you make a good argument, but we as a species are proving we are not the people we imagine ourselves to be.
I agree with most of this. The carbon markets can’t deal with leakage either. Western blindness to the other 7 billion is not just about the rich. And solutions have to be as much about food as they are fur and feathers, but… capitalism is a symptom, not always a pleasant one, and treating it is necessary but its still a symptom. Our real problem is the transition from 8 billion to 3 billion without nuking each other or throwing away the moral compass. A bit of old school socialism is not going to achieve that.
Yeah I don't think we should play into populationism (especially at a time of rising fascism) and take a look at the level of resource use between someone in one of the world's poorest countries, to one of the world's richest, and it shows that population isn't the defining metric.
Thanks for this comment. I think if that is the argument he wants to make, and I read Regenesis, then he needs to find a (even just a theoretical) way forward for that at least. I would still profoundly disagree with him but then at least I would be able to see more coherence in his argument. In a capitalist political economy I don't see that going anywhere and he sort of to's and fro's between reformism and arguing to move beyond capitalism. I think Half Earth Socialism does a better job of arguing for this, albeit in the US context, and I am also critical of it (and have co-authored a critical review, for those interested!), but it's a more cohesive argument at least. For my own critique I try to stay with what is actually happening, rather than remaining in the realm of ideas. It's a clichéd argument by now, that gets twisted in the wrong way too, but rewilding/restoring more British land, whilst relying on imports is no better if we're talking about avocados or soya feed for livestock.
Have you got somewhere you lay out these criticisms in longer form? I can't find the Half Earth Socialism review, and I'm very sympathetic to the idea of demand reduction for meat, at least.
I think the issues you laid out here are exactly why we need less of this preservation/human-free approach to conservation. My particular interest is in where conservation and agriculture intersect. SO much is possible in that space. I’m in North America, and here we have dozens, if not hundreds, of easy-to-grow, highly nutritious, and very palatable native plants that most people don’t even know are food. I am certain that highly productive systems that are majority or even entirely native plants can be designed in most, probably all bioregions.
The limiting factor is, as you mentioned in the piece, the fact that this will require diet changes and massive reworking of agricultural systems and labor. The cultural and economic barriers to this shift are massive, but I don’t think it’s hopeless. I think creating more and more demonstration projects to test designs and show folks what is possible can do a lot to show people what’s possible.
Yep agreed re challenging this idea of separation of humans and nature - very harmful colonial thinking.
Sooo good thank you so much for this. It reminds me a lot of Max Ajl’s work.
Thanks for the kind words! And yes not sure if i directly ref'd his work in this article or not now, but in most of my articles I end u p ref'ing him at some point as been very influenced by it!
What I find so infuriating is the fact that degraded land which is privately owned in many cases is not part of the solution, Huge sections of the US Europe and Australia are in poor condition and we neglect these relatively easy gains instead outsource the environmental problems we have created to other countries. Cashed strapped farmers do not have the time or capital in many cases but the repair of degraded land allows for environmental and ecological benefits way beyond the boarders of the individual farm.
Yes to this: "too often mainstream environmentalism focuses on the damage that humans2 cause, and specifically certain groups of humans, rather than on the underlying social relations that have given rise to these practices in the first place."
There are indeed some deep places we can and should go with that.
And of course the markets are incapable of going there, as you say.
I'll just add that the term "restoration" is pretty nebulous too, which allows it to be captured by corporate interests. I think it has distinctly different shades of meaning in the UK vs the US too. As someone who writes about these topics too, I've actually been realizing I should define what I mean when I use it, but that this might be trickier than it seems. I'm curious how you see it.
yeah that's totally fair — if you write anything on this I'd be interested to read. There's various terms that can be used and all seem to have their pitfalls. For me, it would be about, and this is admittedly general, improving the quality of watercourses measures by eg plant life and aquatic life, improving soils so that they are "living", much greater plant biodiversity in a pasture, ideally something more like a wildflower meadow (not sure how well that idea travels to the US), or if we're talking about trees, then greater diversity of tree species, fungi, other plant life etc. (say versus a conifer plantation). More birds, more butterflies, more insects etc. I'm not an ecologist, so my understanding comes from 10 years of farming, permaculture, agroecology, and that side of things more than the side of conservation, rewilding etc. Like our biodiversity in the UK is so low that it's not hard to push things in the right direction. But that tension for me has to be with increasing and not reducing food production - and doing so through agroecological methods, or at least genuinely regenerative agriculture. I'm not against there being "wild" places, I just am sceptical about what's actually happening and the consequences of it, but very much criticisms based on these islands and wouldn't want to comment on specifics elsewhere much.
Your book Roadtripping at the End of the World looks really interesting btw - I'm adding that to the reading list.
Interesting article.
You could mention the environmental and sociological damage done by the creation of and export of huge food surpluses and food aid, destroying rural economies worldwide.
And small scale farming can be more productive and ecologically friendly than large scale (and my farm is an example.)
thank you and yep agreed with all this
This is a very cogent piece, Alex. Thank you for taking the time to put it together and share it with us. I live on Raasay, in the thick of rural sheep/land/biodiversity dynamics. It’s definitely complex in the micro and macro.
I’m a depth psychologist (former gas engineer) who has worked with conservation to help conservationists try and understand how their own forms of fundamentalism often drive the issues they say they wish to address…(planting a vision - guardian, a few years back) and help them begin meaningful and collaborative conversations. It takes time (about two years for meaningful foundations and mutual respect to appear, and after 5 - a true generative alliance forms across all former divides - not best buddies, but open-minded engagement and dialogue.
And, I wonder where we draw lines and differentiate - and I’m reluctant to say this ‘out loud’, and am horrified at the UK’s and US’s willful complicity in genocide - deeply troubling, not just because of the consequences in the mid-east, but what that says about us as a species… yet the conflict we see engulfing the world is in the main driven by monotheistic judeo christian belief systems - where the deep rupture between humans and the earth first emerged, the earth now collateral damage in the face of what psychologically is a death cult - by way of pathological and systemic dissociation.
Anything downstream of that deep structure pathology engulfing the collective will always be ‘shuffling the deckchairs' to a lesser or greater degree…in short, you make a good argument, but we as a species are proving we are not the people we imagine ourselves to be.
"It’s more evidence that the richest countries on the planet are driving species extinction across the globe."
Absolutely!
I loved this read and your connection between dominant narratives of "preserving biodiversity" and the reality of that under neoliberalism.
I agree with most of this. The carbon markets can’t deal with leakage either. Western blindness to the other 7 billion is not just about the rich. And solutions have to be as much about food as they are fur and feathers, but… capitalism is a symptom, not always a pleasant one, and treating it is necessary but its still a symptom. Our real problem is the transition from 8 billion to 3 billion without nuking each other or throwing away the moral compass. A bit of old school socialism is not going to achieve that.
Yeah I don't think we should play into populationism (especially at a time of rising fascism) and take a look at the level of resource use between someone in one of the world's poorest countries, to one of the world's richest, and it shows that population isn't the defining metric.
I think the authors of the science piece want to justify sustainable intensification with their hypothetical framing of biodiversity leakage.
Yeah that does look true actually : | all roads lead back to SI
Thanks for this comment. I think if that is the argument he wants to make, and I read Regenesis, then he needs to find a (even just a theoretical) way forward for that at least. I would still profoundly disagree with him but then at least I would be able to see more coherence in his argument. In a capitalist political economy I don't see that going anywhere and he sort of to's and fro's between reformism and arguing to move beyond capitalism. I think Half Earth Socialism does a better job of arguing for this, albeit in the US context, and I am also critical of it (and have co-authored a critical review, for those interested!), but it's a more cohesive argument at least. For my own critique I try to stay with what is actually happening, rather than remaining in the realm of ideas. It's a clichéd argument by now, that gets twisted in the wrong way too, but rewilding/restoring more British land, whilst relying on imports is no better if we're talking about avocados or soya feed for livestock.
Have you got somewhere you lay out these criticisms in longer form? I can't find the Half Earth Socialism review, and I'm very sympathetic to the idea of demand reduction for meat, at least.
Yeah sure - it's on here, but you'll have to request it and then I can send it to you. The one on hinterlands. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Heffron-3?__cf_chl_tk=gb3z10Lo8bHJozITH5c4wOS7kYXSad3Gh_.pjUn1leY-1739892896-1.0.1.1-vcdw.2wCiRvaJq.5lfT6ILcJ33j14NHJkrl6ifex3YQ
Also, and I haven't read it myself yet, but a recent book engaged with mine and Kai's article, along with half earth socialism too, so you might find that interesting (chapter 20): https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10203807/1/Postcapitalist-Countrysides.pdf
Thank you!