Diversity is more than a buzzword.  We see an ever-increasing focus on women, minorities youth and indigenous communities in the programmatic priorities of donors. In the business landscape, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) - which includes ethnic and gender diversity, age, sexual orientation, physical ability and neurodiversity – are critical indicators on sustainability. Though progress on building diverse workforces might remain slow, few would argue about its value in driving innovation, improving performance and creating a rewarding work environment. 

But do we acknowledge sufficiently that social and workplace diversity draws from nature?

Natural selection has fashioned the natural world into an extraordinary array of living things, sharing space on the surface of the earth and in its oceans while harnessing energy from the sun. These bewildering forms of life live (and let live) in ecological niches. Every species is suited to the ways of life that it must follow; often present is an extremely diverse array. Together, these diverse species live in a peaceful and efficient co-existence. It is this diversity that optimizes the movement of resources and energy through closed cycles. It is this diversity that ensures nature has no losses and no waste.

However, when we design systems, we strive to balance the working and load-bearing parts to a minimum. We seek to standardize designs to make them easier and cheaper to ‘scale’. Nature is the opposite. Efficiency and scale are enabled through diversity. But as nature has no place in modern economic systems, we must celebrate two corrections made at the recent 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CoP16), in Cali Colombia, in November 2024.

First, we reached an agreement that businesses that use and earn profits from digital genetic information extracted from nature will have to pay for it. This will be a game changer in nature finance and agriculture. Prior to CoP 16, companies based in countries that have ratified the Convention had to simply complete paperwork to obtain permission to use physical samples of non-human genetic material. If the multinational company made commercial profits from the use of these physical samples, they needed to share them with the country of origin. As expected, these broad requirements resulted in very little implementation.   

The game changer at CoP 16 is that the new provisions extend the definition of non-human genetic material to include digital sequence information (DSI). Businesses using DSI or physical samples will be required to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenues into the ‘Cali Fund’ that could be used by the country of origin to conserve nature. Businesses that record USD 20 million in assets per year, have sales revenues of USD 50 million per year or make an average of USD 5 million in annual profits over the preceding three years are required to participate. The focus on DSI is important as it provides the basis for transparency and tracking of genetic materials and their use up and down the value chain. The CoP 16 text also includes provision on the rights of Indigenous peoples and principles of open data.   

Second, the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB), launched its Framework for High Integrity Biodiversity Markets. Given that the Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted just two years ago, the fact that a framework for biodiversity credits is under discussion is already an achievement. We also welcome that the framework advises against secondary markets for biodiversity credits and discusses ‘insetting’ (when businesses invest in biodiversity within their supply chains and places where they are located to redress ‘nature-related impacts and dependencies’) as a viable strategy. The framework is in sync with the Science-Based Targets Network and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). Undoubtedly there is more to do to operate transparent and efficient biodiversity credit markets, but this first framework provides an important baseline.

These developments bring biodiversity into the heart of farming and food policy as never before. They also provide for diversifying farming revenue, which is perhaps the most contentious issue of our times. Farming communities are the first to lose faith in the liberal democratic narrative. They are voting with their feet based on uncertainties related to income, food security, climate, credit, working conditions, red tape and migration. On the latter, the largest pockets of migrating communities are impoverished farmers who toil on degraded land.

Taking an ecologist’s perspective, we human beings have far exceeded our ‘ecological ‘niche’, both in terms of our population and in our demands for energy and raw materials. While technology will help us expand our niche and access more energy and materials, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that we would, in return, need to compromise on other liberties such as privacy, space, free will, and individual freedom. These dangers are best expressed by the ecologist Paul Colinvaux, who wrote back in 1980 “As we crowd more and more people into societies, we can feed them, clothe them and shelter them. For a time at least, we may be able to deny them the right to aggrieve war. But we are surely going to force many of them to live in niches that are not congenial to them. ….. To determine what the future will be like, we need some satisfactory definition of the kind of human niche we are about to deny to so many.  We might say that a satisfying human niche is bound by a set of unalienable rights, amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Technology will grant life. It is the other parameters of our niche that will be denied as we slowly destroy the world around us.  …… Liberty will fall progressively as human numbers and needs rise and obedient compliance with the majority will take the place of individual initiative.”

Colinvaux’s words are certainly playing out today. Biodiversity is akin to liberty, freedom and democracy. When we need inspiration, relief from stress, or solace and when we want to celebrate, mourn or be thankful, we turn the nature.  We must value it. The only way to halt ongoing extinction is for us to pay nature for goods and services.   

References

Colinvaux, Paul (1980). Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare. Penguin Books.