Biodiversity has been in steep decline globally since at least the 1970s, but only recently have governments, civil society, and policymakers begun to coalesce around meaningful action. In 2022, a significant milestone was reached with the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework at the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15), which features internationally agreed upon targets for conservation.

This year’s COP16, held in Cali, Colombia at the end of October, brought together representatives from 175 countries to discuss implementation of those targets. One tension in this process is the fact that most of the world’s biodiversity is concentrated in the 135 countries with developing economies that make up the global majority. Its decline, however, has largely resulted from the actions of a handful of mostly developed countries, including the United States, whose Senate has not ratified the agreement.

To talk about some of these issues, Jill Stoddard interviewed Brad Cardinale, a professor at Penn State University and ecologist focusing on the conservation and restoration of biodiversity in natural systems, as well as the ecological design of human-engineered systems that benefit from the use of native species and biodiversity.

The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Last week, the sixteenth yearly UN biodiversity conference, COP16, wrapped up in Cali, Colombia. What should happen going forward with the COP process?

At COP15 in 2022, the Kunming Montreal Biodiversity Framework was agreed upon, and if it is successfully implemented, it’s going to be the single most important and significant effort ever to save and protect biodiversity in the history of humanity. It’s a major step forward compared to our previous efforts, which were plagued by vague language. This new agreement has clear targets that are more in the realm of what would be good for biodiversity—conserve 30% of lands and ocean by 2030, for example—and it has mechanisms for financing and accountability that are important steps forward for the international community.

Despite being an important step forward, there are a lot of questions about whether countries are going to make the financial commitments that are necessary to achieve these targets and goals. The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, established in 2023, was supposed to raise tens of billions of dollars to achieve the 2030 targets, but it currently has less than $400 million. We are orders of magnitude short in the financial commitments that would be required to make this happen.

If we can get the financial commitments that countries have agreed to, then I think future COPs will largely focus on accountability. Countries need to come to those meetings with statements and reports on how they’re accomplishing these goals—how close and how far they are from that goal and their plan and financial contribution to meet it.

Is the United States giving anywhere near enough financial support?

The short answer is no. I don’t know of any statistics that would place the US in the top 10 for any conservation measure, including funding of these international initiatives and agreements, which we always seem to fall short on.

Once upon a time, the US was a leader in conservation. If, for example, you look back to the 1970s when the US passed the Endangered Species Act, that was a truly novel piece of legislation at the time. But over the past several decades, the US has mostly slipped out of leadership on pretty much anything in conservation or the environment.

Which countries stand out as having innovative approaches?

A few that come to mind for me are Japan, Germany, and South Korea for their sustainable agriculture initiatives that try to maximize efficiency and minimize waste, which in turn minimizes the amount of land converted to agriculture and helps protect biodiversity. This is important because natural habitats converted to agriculture are the single biggest contributor to biodiversity loss.

China stands out when we look at human-dominated ecosystems like cities. Currently, only 3% of the land surface of the planet is in cities, but that number is expected to grow to 10–12% in our lifetime. Any design that can make cities more friendly to biodiversity is a real opportunity for conservation. For example, China has programs like the “sponge city” program, where they’ve created huge green spaces and wetlands in megacities to serve as a sponge that protects them from flooding. Those areas end up being rather biodiverse, at least for a city.

And then there is ecotourism, where entire countries like Costa Rica and Chile have committed to linking their economy and people’s livelihoods to the ability of other folks to visit and experience nature. These countries have shown that human wellbeing and conservation can go hand in hand and provide a good standard of living. Costa Rica’s standard living is one of the best in Central America, and it’s partly because of the ecotourism industry.

During some of the COP16 panels, I heard some panelists echo the global majority’s frustration with how they are treated by Western countries. An example made by a Colombian expert was that US demand for cocaine is worsening their biodiversity crisis—causing protected forests to be illegally cut—and the US has not been an effective partner in countering this.

I think the frustration expressed by the global majority stems from two general issues. One is hypocrisy, where a country like the United States is telling other countries to conserve their biodiversity even as we fail to conserve ours. We’re also a primary country that is creating demand for the destruction of natural resources in other countries.

The second issue is the “savior mentality,” where westerners go into Colombia and claim to know how to solve the country’s problems and local biodiversity. Colombians respond by saying it’s their biodiversity, arguing that not only do they have local experts who know the value of diversity and can lead their efforts, but they also have indigenous peoples who have been doing this for millennia.

This dynamic needs to change. Western countries need to be less hypocritical and better partners. We need to acknowledge that this is an international problem and we’d like to work with Colombia and its experts to help solve it. And to practice what we preach.

COP16 was attended by many businesses—3,000 was the number given—which is far more than in COP15. Do you think bringing more businesses to COP will create a better outcome for conservation?

I see this as a two-edged sword. The corporate presence at COP16 or any future biodiversity conference is a step in the right direction if we can forge partnerships with those businesses. A good portion of the businesses who have representatives there may be genuinely interested in how they can be more socially conscious, improve their sustainability practices, or reduce their impact. There are probably some who see opportunities for more environmentally friendly financial growth, perhaps by participating in markets or payments for ecosystem services.

The bad side is that there is a lot of concern about infiltration and influence by corporations that have ulterior motives. COP16 has offered a wide variety of opportunities for business representatives to weigh in on the wording of the text that’s being negotiated to advocate for their solutions—whether at events, receptions, or dinners. There are reports of lobbyists that represent the oil and gas industry, agrochemical industry, or pharmaceutical industry, all of which would be negatively impacted by international agreements for conservation and sustainability. There have been reports that those representatives are trying to make the language of agreements vague so that they wouldn’t be implementable. They’re trying to get participation in agreements to be voluntary, so that countries don’t actually have to participate. And they’re trying to reduce funding pledges so that the implementation would be difficult or impossible.

I am worried that these businesses and industries are trying to build on their success infiltrating other international agreements, as happened at last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change COP in the United Arab Emirates, a petrostate.

I want to talk a little bit about the role of Indigenous people in conservation efforts. Do you think there is a lack of Indigenous people’s knowledge in biodiversity conservation? Do we need to improve how we incorporate Indigenous knowledge into solutions?

I think people are seeing a push for Indigenous peoples and local communities to be more included in conservation efforts than they have been in the past. Arguably, Indigenous peoples have suffered the greatest environmental injustices in the name of conservation. In creating protected areas, they’ve been forced out of their homes and displaced from their land. They’ve had to give up their livelihoods and culture. And they’ve been subsequently marginalized in decision making. Supporting their participation in conservation efforts now is in some ways trying to correct an environmental justice that should have never happened in the first place. It’s simply the right thing to do.

The other part of it is that for the world to reach the agreed-upon conservation goals, Indigenous peoples need to be part of this effort. While Indigenous peoples make up around 6% of the global population, they manage a huge amount of the world’s land. In fact, Indigenous peoples manage some 38 million square kilometers globally, including 40% of lands that are listed by national governance as being managed for conservation. If we’re going to accomplish the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s land and ocean by 2030, Indigenous people are one of the few ways we can get there.

Many people would argue that Western cultures have ignored local and Indigenous knowledge when trying to come up with ways to conserve nature and its biodiversity. With that, I fully agree. But I think some have overly idealized Indigenous cultures by suggesting they have managed their lands sustainably for millennia and lived in harmony with nature. I don’t think this idea is accurate or scientifically justifiable. On the other hand, can Indigenous knowledge complement Western science? Absolutely. The potential is immense, and I do think they can be married. Local communities and Indigenous peoples have knowledge systems that we have yet to cooperate fully with to help us hone science. But I would stop short of any suggestion or argument that traditional knowledge can replace science and do better for conservation by itself.

I’ve heard arguments that what is being asked of countries in these global agreements is too ambitious, and in the time that it takes to line up all the stakeholders and financing toward achieving them, decades can pass where essentially no action is taken. Do you think that COPs should push for lower ambitions or communicate them differently?

I would not lower ambitions. However, I think our global agreements could be seen as more realistic if we offered smaller steps and incremental solutions that are more tractable.

I also think we need to communicate our ambitions and solutions in a different way. A lot of the communication to date has been doom and gloom, and we know that doom and gloom catastrophe scenarios tend to make people shut down psychologically. There needs to be more positive messaging that focuses on what we can do, as well as success stories that show how people can make a difference and inspire people to make a difference.

Do you think governments are becoming more concerned about the impact of the biodiversity crisis on peace and security? How are they thinking about it?

 When I was invited to speak to the United States National Security Council (NSC) a few years ago about the role of biodiversity in national security, one thing that struck me was that they were not looking at biodiversity like I was. When it came to security, I was looking at biodiversity from the point of view of how it can help protect people in the face of local disasters—things like hurricanes and crops failing because of pests or disease. In contrast, the NSC was more interested in things that can provoke wars or energy shortages—things that could result in national crises as opposed to local ones.

The number of times that I see biodiversity coming up on security agendas and people mentioning it is increasing. Yet, I can count the number of published studies about this topic on one hand, and even then, we’ve got a handful of case studies. So, even as governments are becoming more interested in the topic, research has yet to focus on it. Security is probably one of the most pressing reasons why nature is important to people, and national security is what governments care about. The topic needs a lot more attention.

However, there are some examples to draw on. For example, one of the few foreign groups of people that North Korea has allowed into their country to tour and offer suggestions was a group of scientists who were invited there to think about how to restore nature so that it has productive soils to grow crops again. North Korea is a country of concern when looking at global security, and it faces constant food insecurity and famine because they’ve destroyed most of their natural resources and can’t grow food for their population. That’s not to say that we wouldn’t have a national security concern with North Korea if their food insecurity were resolved, but I think it’s an example where national security interests have been exaggerated greatly by people destroying nature to the extent that it is not able to provide for their needs.

Fisheries are another example where biodiversity and security agendas intersect. We’ve seen conflict over fisheries over and over again in international waters or on country borders. If one country is coming in and depleting a stock and it’s affecting the ability of another country and its people to provide for themselves, then we’ve got a security issue and the potential for conflict.

What do you think is missing from discussions about biodiversity right now?

I woke up at 2am this morning thinking about this question. I think what’s missing right now is the thrill that comes from wonder and discovery of life.

The average person is inherently drawn to the process of discovering life. You see this in how our culture obsesses about life on other planets. Countries spend billions on space exploration and people spend equal amounts to see movies about aliens and outer space. Yet we don’t have that same level of curiosity about discovering life on our own planet where, at best, we spend just tens to hundreds of millions.

So what I think is really missing right now from places like COP16 and other international efforts is efforts to better connect people with the wonder of life on our planet and the desire to discover it. There are more than nine million multicellular species that are predicted to exist, and the majority of them have yet to be seen. There is this big rainforest in Colombia, and many of the species in that forest have yet to be discovered. We’ve got to go document them so that we know what we’re even trying to protect. Agencies that fund science have shied away from discovery-oriented research. They’re into strict hypothesis testing, but fields like taxonomy systematics are not well-funded.

Artificial intelligence could also be really important for discovering life on Earth. The field of AI is being funded like crazy, often by the private sector, so we are advancing technology that doesn’t necessarily relate to biology on this planet but can be refocused on looking for and protecting life for the benefit of humans. That, in my view, would be a valuable use of AI.

Jill Stoddard is Editor-in-Chief and Head of the Global Observatory, and Senior Advisor at the International Peace Institute.