Loss and damage finance should apply to biodiversity loss

Ecological Civilisation and Amphibian Sustainability through Reproduction Biotechnologies, Biobanking, and Conservation Breeding Programs (RBCs)

Intergenerational justice entitles the maximum retention of Earth's biodiversity. The 2022 United Nations COP 15, "Ecological Civilisation: Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth", is committed to protecting 30% of Earth's terrestrial environments and, through COP 28, to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe on the biosphere. We focused this review on three core themes: the need and potential of reproduction biotechnologies, biobanks, and conservation breeding programs (RBCs) to satisfy sustainability goals; the technical state and current application of RBCs; and how to achieve the future potentials of RBCs in a rapidly evolving environmental and cultural landscape. RBCs include the hormonal stimulation of reproduction, the collection and storage of sperm and oocytes, and artificial fertilisation. Emerging technologies promise the perpetuation of species solely from biobanked biomaterials stored for perpetuity. Despite significant global declines and extinctions of amphibians, and predictions of a disastrous future for most biodiversity, practical support for amphibian RBCs remains limited mainly to a few limited projects in wealthy Western countries. We discuss the potential of amphibian RBCs to perpetuate amphibian diversity and prevent extinctions within multipolar geopolitical, cultural, and economic frameworks. We argue that a democratic, globally inclusive organisation is needed to focus RBCs on regions with the highest amphibian diversity. Prioritisation should include regional and international collaborations, community engagement, and support for RBC facilities ranging from zoos and other institutions to those of private carers. We tabulate a standard terminology for field programs associated with RBCs for publication and media consistency.

Claiming ecological grief: Why are we not mourning (more and more publicly) for ecological destruction?

Eco-anxiety, grief and despair are increasing, yet these emotions tend to remain private, rarely expressed in public. Why is it important and necessary to grieve for ecological loss? Why are we not-as individuals and societies-coming together to express and share our grief for ecological destruction? I address these questions from three angles. Firstly, I draw on recent literature on ecological grief and prior work on grief for human lives, to argue for the importance and urgency of grieving publicly for ecological loss. Building on this, I identify perceptual, cognitive, affective, ritual and political obstacles to ecological mourning; these obstacles point at critical intersections between emotions, practices, disciplines, public and private realms, which can turn into fruitful venues for further research, debate and action on ecological grief (and its absence). In closing, I propose a set of 'ecological skills' that might help us overcome these obstacles, and lead us to embrace ecological grief and mourning as acts of ethical responsibility and care for the planet.

Lessons from COP15 on effective scientific engagement in biodiversity policy processes

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022. The aftermath of these negotiations provides an opportunity to draw lessons as to how ecological and evolutionary science can more effectively inform policy. We examined key challenges that limit effective engagement by scientists in the biodiversity policy process, drawing parallels with analogous challenges within global climate negotiations. Biodiversity is multifaceted, yet represents only one framing for nature's contributions to people, complicating the nexus between evidence and values in development of the framework's targets. Processes generating biodiversity and driving its loss are multiscalar, challenging development of an evidence base for globally standardized targets. We illustrated these challenges by contrasting development of 2 key elements of the framework. The genetic diversity element of the framework's target 4 is directly related to the framework's primary goals, but its complexity required development of novel engagement skills. The target for protected areas was easily communicated but more indirectly related to biodiversity outcomes; evidence from ecological and social science was essential to communicating the context and limitations of this relationship. Scientists can strengthen the effectiveness of global agreements and address challenges arising from complexity, scaling, capacity limitations, and the interplay of science and values, if they can prioritize communication, consensus-building, and networking skills and engage throughout the process, from development of an evidence base to implementation.