Advice on how to spot fake news from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. You can apply these principles to spot dubious claims from those who use unethical fund-raising methods. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.)

A hair-raising fund-raising story

This story begins with a post I read on LinkedIn. The article in question is trying to raise money for a conservation organization. Among several dubious claims, one stuck out. According to the author, for “approximately $12M a single donor could have protected, in perpetuity… trillions of microbial species.”

Well, I’m not a soil scientist. However, I’ve studied biodiversity since the mid-1980s. So I know that we understand microbial biodiversity too poorly to make such a claim. The writer is not a soil scientist, either. But that lack of expertise did not stop him from making this dramatic claim. I commented on his post that there is simply no agreement among biologists about the number of microbial species. In support, I found a Nature article that says, “estimates for the total number of microbial species vary wildly, from as low as 120,000 to tens of millions and higher.” Millions, maybe. But trillions? Who can say? Indeed, biologists can’t even agree on how well Mayr’s definition of species applies to microbes, and prokaryotes in particular. (See e.g., Konstantinidis, et al. 2006). The writer simply has no justification for stating that a donation could save “trillions of microbial species.”

Nevertheless, the writer insisted that he was correct in his use of that unverifiable number. I beg to differ. Any time someone uses an exaggeration, hyperbole or invented data to bolster a cause, particularly when trying to raise money, their motives are suspect. In the old days, such a person would be called a snake oil salesman, a charlatan, a conman or any number of other derogatory names. I avoided such epithets. Instead I tried to present my case rationally, from a scientific standpoint. To no avail.

Bogus claims

The writer made several other claims that I could challenge. For example, the claim that $12M could protect 11 million acres of “life-essential ecosystems.” I have helped to manage a small conservation non-profit called SavingSpecies for the past seven years. We focus on buying cheap, degraded land in high biodiversity areas of the world. The cheapest land we have been able to purchase was in Ecuador at just over $400 per acre. That land was infertile and eroded former cattle pasture. When we bought it, the land was not good even for that any more. So quite how the writer proposed to protect “in perpetuity” land comprising “life-essential ecosystems” for $1.09 per acre is a complete mystery to me.

The corrosive effects of fake news

Dubious claims such as these benefit no-one. Indeed, it’s a sad commentary on our times that we’re swamped with “fake news.” Look no further than Washington DC. You can see the corrosive effects of false and misleading information. For those of us who are in the fund-raising business, it’s more vital than ever to keep our facts and figures straight. Yes, there’s lots of competition for the donor dollar. But that does not justify using hyperbole. Bending facts, fudging figures, massaging data–these are the tools of hustlers and swindlers, not respectable fund-raising enterprises. Here’s why you should stick to the facts.

1. Exaggeration or dubious claims do your enterprise more harm than good.
2. Such claims damage your own credibility, and that of organizations for whom you’re working.
3. The claims of other hard-working fund-raisers and conservationists can also come under suspicion, particularly among non-experts.
4. You provide opponents of conservation with ammunition to use against conservation in general.
5. When donors give to causes based on exaggerated claims, and their expectations aren’t met, they will likely give their future gifts to unrelated causes.

Read up, stand up, and speak up

So, my fellow conservationists and fund-raisers, I implore you (1) to carefully read through claims to ensure that they are based on fact and are verifiable, (2) not to share or like any content that has questionable data, and (3) to call out the perpetrators when you encounter them. Otherwise, we risk being tarred by the same “fake news” brush that plagues other realms of the media. And that jeopardizes the entire donor-funded conservation enterprise.

REFERENCE
Konstantinidis, K, Ramette A and Tiedje JM (2006) The bacterial species definition in the genomic era. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 361(1475): 1929–1940. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1920

The post Honesty, integrity and “fake news” in fund-raising for conservation appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

(Image courtesy of Bigstockphoto.)

The marketing profession has been absent from the sustainability debate

Many biodiversity professionals have undoubtedly followed events at the recent COP21 in Paris, where the UN climate talks resulted in some groundbreaking agreements. The private sector certainly seems more engaged in the sustainability debate. Leading consumer companies and retailers are publicly supporting global initiatives for renewable energy and zero net deforestation. It provides hope for the much needed transformation of agricultural production worldwide. However, this must be matched by a paradigm shift in consumer behavior, especially for the consumption of food and basic household products. Some observers have been keen to spot that, despite the presence of high profile corporate CEOs, the marketing profession has been noticeably absent, even though marketers have a vital role to play in informing and shaping consumer sentiment.

The palm oil sector is a good example of how changing consumption patterns, in tandem with corresponding EU food regulation, can have a tremendous effect on swinging the pendulum towards sustainable production: 20% of global palm oil production is now certified and this is set to double by 2020.

Consumer understanding of the link between sustainability and palm oil is still patchy and the marketing profession has done little to address this issue. Where indeed are the marketers?

Are turkeys voting for Christmas?

It seems obvious to think this is the case for a profession that sprung from the economic boom decades of the 50’s and 60’s and is seemingly dedicated to the continuous rise of private consumption. But such an oversimplification is not warranted, as marketing has become more of a victim of its own success. The essence of marketing is about crafting and communicating what an organization or individual has to offer. So, given the explosion in communication tools with the Internet, we are all involved in some form of marketing at some stage. It is certainly no longer purely the domain of consumer goods, and most of the expansion has focused on other sectors, from charities to celebrities to nation branding. Some of the founding fathers of the profession have been calling for ‘de-marketing’ to include the environmental perspective and for “creating shared value,” but such thinking has been slow to permeate a discipline that is now so fragmented and ubiquitous.

Marketing or communication?

The reality in today’s world of social media and online conversation is that a lot of marketing communication is done by non-marketers with no or little formal training in the art of integrated marketing. In fact, the question should be asked whether the term marketing still aptly describes activities that can include social media management, crisis communication and fundraising. There are fewer pure marketers and more and more specialists and consultants in a sector that has been diluted and industrialized through the abundant use of digital tools and outsourcing.

Digital distraction

In these turbulent times of constant technological advance, we must all adapt and keep upgrading our know-how, whether you are a researcher, a manager or a manual worker. The marketing sector has been affected to a greater extent, as this trend has impacted its core skill set, and it is struggling to keep pace.

It is fair to say that marketing is going through an identity crisis. Given the above developments, it is lacking in focus and direction. Despite its growing reach, the profession has suffered from a declining image and credibility. Professional bodies, such as the AMA American Marketing Association and CIM Chartered Institute of Marketing have been unable to reverse the trend. This decline has been publicly lamented by leading marketing authors including Philip Kotler and Malcolm McDonald, who suggested: “the discipline of marketing is destined to become increasingly less influential unless there is some kind of revolution.”

There seems to be a consensus among marketing academics and practitioners that to regain a position of influence where it matters most—in the board room—the profession must counter its perceived short-termism. Marketers must put much more emphasis on its essential strategic function: to deliver innovative offerings to the marketplace that will satisfy the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s consumers, and benefit the long-term prosperity of the organization and society. “Marketing can change the world,” according to Hugh Davidson, provided the marketing community rises to the challenge of this fundamental visionary leadership role.

Lessons for conservationists

What can conservationists learn from the diverse and pervasive status of marketing? To emulate would be the best approach, given that multidisciplinarity and communication are fundamental to the progress of the biodiversity and sustainability agendas.

Effective communication must become a core skill in science education and research. Science communication is a growing field, but the scientific community will have to break free of the shackles of over-specialization, fuelled by the outdated ‘publish or perish’ ethos of the academic elite. Public access to scientific research should be universal and free: the process of widening access has been too slow. This may impact on the image and status of the scientific community, but just as with the marketing profession, it will benefit the cause of science and conservation in the long run.

About the author

Biodiversity Professionals member Barbara de Waard is a marketing coach and founder of Biodiversity Business, a social enterprise dedicated to creating shared value for biodiversity and business through conservation travel and supply chain transformation to save endangered species.

The post Sustainability Debate: Where are the marketers? appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Indigenous communities can play a pivotal role in the success of a conservation program. (Image courtesy of junglephotos.com)

However, many officially protected areas suffer from neglect, poor management, and corruption. This new research emphasizes the pivotal role local communities could play in addressing these shortcomings. From their analysis of villages in a region in Papua New Guinea, the researchers conclude: “…local monitoring contributes to effective protection and deters unregulated exploitation,” and that, “Clearly, local people are effective in protecting large areas in a relatively natural state.”

Giving local people a stake in the protection and restoration of their surrounding area could make all the difference, even to established conservation programs. The bottom-up approach can provide the community with much-needed jobs through ecotourism, sustainable harvesting and conservation area protection. In turn, local jobs help to prevent migration to urban areas, and lessen the pressure to engage in slash-and-burn agriculture or to sell out to the highest bidder, which may be a mining or lumber company, or big agriculture.

We certainly need new and thoughtful approaches, since the past half century of business as usual has got us nowhere.

References
Sheil, D., M. Boissière, and G. Beaudoin. 2015. Unseen sentinels: local monitoring and control in conservation’s blind spots. Ecology and Society 20(2): 39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07625-200239
See also Mongabay: Local stewardship: conservation’s ‘vast blind spot’

The post Conservationists must engage local communities appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

There is a risk that traditional conservation strategies oriented toward biodiversity may not be effective at protecting the economic benefits of an ecosystem, and vice-versa. ~ Bill Adams

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today (30 October) in the journal Science, Professor Bill Adams of the University’s Department of Geography argues that assigning a quantitative value to nature does not automatically lead to the conservation of biodiversity, and may in fact contribute to species loss and conflict.

While assigning a monetary value to the benefits of an ecosystem can be an essential tool in the environmental planning process, unequal access to those benefits, particularly where there are differences in wealth and power, can lead to poor trade-offs being made, both for the ecosystem itself and those who rely on it.

“Putting a price on what nature provides is not in itself a conservation measure,” said Adams. “There is a risk that traditional conservation strategies oriented toward biodiversity may not be effective at protecting the economic benefits of an ecosystem, and vice-versa.”

For example, when stream channels in the US state of Maryland were re-engineered to provide a means of natural flood control, it ended up causing the loss of trees which had been growing next to the water and were unable to adapt to their new, drier environment.

The ways in which we depend on our natural environment are increasingly expressed as ‘ecosystem services’, or the range of benefits we get from nature for free. These benefits include the provision of food and clean water, erosion control and carbon storage. Quantifying the value of nature in this way is meant to allow policymakers to consider the potential economic and social impacts of altering a particular habitat.

This approach does sometimes lead to win-win scenarios, where the value of ecosystem services is dependent upon a high level of biodiversity. One example is in the coffee plantations of Costa Rica, where the retention of forest habitat in areas around the plantations doubled the amount of pest control of coffee berry borer beetle provided by birds, which benefitted the coffee farmers while protecting biodiversity.

However, consideration of ecosystem services when making decisions does not automatically lead to retention of biodiversity. “In many cases, trade-offs are made,” said Adams.

Several factors cause tension between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. One problem is that the biological and physical processes that guarantee the supply of specific ecosystem services may be different from those that support valued species. An ecosystem that is managed to deliver particular services may not support particular elements of biodiversity.

A second problem is that there are often no markets for some vital services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, and while payment schemes can be created to create market-like structures, the value assigned to ecosystem services depends on market prices, which are subject to change.

A third problem arises from the institutional and political processes linking economic benefits from ecosystems and human wellbeing. “Unequal access to benefits, for example where there are differences in wealth and power among stakeholders, can lead to trade-offs being made, with negative impacts for the ecosystem itself and those who rely on it,” Adams comments “It’s not enough to identify the net benefits of ecosystem services; it also matters who gets them.”

For example, in Nepal, research has shown that forests managed by the local community, rather than by the state, yielded benefits of clean water, tourism and harvested wild goods. However, these forests restricted poorer people’s access to forest-derived products, creating hardship, illegal use and impacts on other areas.

“In a world run according to economic arguments, the survival of biotic diversity will depend on its price,” said Adams. “Sometimes economics will favour conservation and sometimes it won’t. But conservationists need to plan for both outcomes.”

The text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to the original page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Original article: Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

The post Does it help conservation to put a price on nature? appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.