Emily Barbo

Symposium 2023 Cross-cutting Theme: Learn, Monitor, Adapt

The Salazar Center’s fifth International Symposium on Conservation Impact focused on how to achieve a nature-positive future together, to catapult our communities towards durable, high-impact outcomes for climate, biodiversity, and human well-being.

We brought together diverse thought leaders to share ideas and best practices for moving beyond individual pilot projects to build lasting systems change for nature and communities across North America. Our two-day dialogue elevated the interconnectedness of biodiversity loss and climate change, both in terms of their impacts and solutions, while highlighting how a nature-based approach can enhance the resilience of both our planet and society. By design, we assembled speakers with varied expertise and backgrounds to showcase the breadth of differing, and sometimes contrarian, opinions and ideas related to our theme. Our intent with this approach was to facilitate our attendees’ ability to deepen their understanding of the issues and perhaps challenge their perspectives.

The 2023 Symposium Synthesis Report summarizes five cross-cutting themes that emerged from the Symposium, as well as key takeaways from each session. The themes reflect ideas, needs, and opportunities raised multiple times by speakers or attendees. Like the interconnectedness of biodiversity and climate, each theme is also connected to the next. Together, they help illuminate potential shared pathways to enrich biodiversity and build long-term, stable societies and healthy economies across North America. 

Don’t have time to read the full report? No problem! We’ve broken it down so you can focus on what resonates the most right now.

Cross-cutting Theme: Learn, Monitor, Adapt

“Are we doing the right thing?” – Lauren Oakes

Regenerating healthy biodiversity and building climate resilience is hard.  Many of us put enormous amounts of energy, time, and money into creating positive change while experiencing tremendous uncertainty around our impact. We must pause and ask ourselves, ‘Are we doing the right thing?’  The lack of metrics and monitoring to support our decision-making is a barrier to answering this question. We need to identify solutions that are effective and lead to durable outcomes. Unfortunately, we are not tracking a common set of metrics to help us collectively answer the question, “Are we getting it right?”  The inherent complexity of biodiversity makes a common set of metrics difficult to achieve, unlike so many of our climate solutions which are largely tied to CO2 equivalents. Not surprisingly, we have yet to fully define approaches to track and measure the suite of co-benefits associated with NBS. In order to get there, “Maybe it is less about right and wrong and more about striving for better as people learn from the challenges and successes of their work as it unfolds over time”, as suggested by Lauren Oakes.  

Without consistent tracking of sufficient and comparable metrics over time, it is difficult to implement effective adaptive management programs within a project or at a larger policy scale. This gap limits our ability to appropriately advance effective approaches and techniques. Adaptive management and its associated monitoring need to be planned strategically from the beginning of a project and sustained throughout its life. Conversely, speakers noted that effective long-term monitoring can take time to produce results, which conflicts with the urgency to invest in and implement widespread solutions.  

To improve adaptive management, we need a clearer understanding of what success looks like in terms of nature-based solutions and their outcomes. Developing a consensus around a common set of performance metrics related to NBS, biodiversity, and climate is required to ensure nature-positive outcomes. The full suite of NBS co-benefits is still poorly measured and understood. One of the major barriers to effective application is the lack of interest from government or philanthropic funders in supporting sustained multi-year monitoring programs. This limits the capacity of organizations to build long-term assessment and learning into their planning processes from the beginning.   

Western monitoring requirements create barriers to Indigenous communities 

In seeking to improve and sustain the use of metrics, monitoring, and adaptive management, speakers elevated the tension between conventional Western and TEK approaches. TEK is often built and shared around storytelling and non-quantitative measures, conflicting with conventional Western metrics and performance indicators. The limited funding available for monitoring typically prioritizes quantitative performance indicators. This creates an obstacle for Indigenous peoples’ access to critical funding for projects. Maybe more importantly, it also prevents the development of human capacity and cross-cultural trust-building. As a result, speakers called upon the conservation community to recognize and respect that Indigenous peoples do not need Western science and data to validate TEK. We must work together to fund and co-create models of support that are more respectful and inclusive of Indigenous ways of knowing.  

Climate solutions must be nature-positive solutions 

Another important concept emerging throughout Symposium discussions was the need for intentional planning to avoid potential conflicts between climate and biodiversity solutions. Climate change is often seen as more urgent than biodiversity loss, partly because climate threats and solutions receive better-developed messaging and measurements than fractured ecosystem services and functions. Promoting and incorporating nature-based solutions can help balance this tension. However, there is still a need for policies that fully analyze and prioritize the impacts of climate solutions to ensure no unintended consequences for biodiversity, ecosystems, and communities. We cannot let the sense of urgency around solving climate change over the long term supersede concerns about how those strategies or projects can negatively impact efforts and goals for protecting biodiversity and ensuring positive, equitable outcomes for communities. 

 

Download the full 2023 Symposium Synthesis Report

Emily Barbo

Symposium Speaker: Sylvain Fabi

The Salazar Center is proud to announce that Sylvain Fabi, Consul General of Canada, will be joining us in Denver, Colorado for the fifth-annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact.

Sylvain joined the Consulate General of Canada in Denver in October 2020. As Canada’s Consul General in the U.S. Mountain West Region, Mr. Fabi oversees a team of 17 people who work within Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Utah and Wyoming to strengthen trade and economic ties; enhance political, academic and cultural links; and assist Canadians visiting or living in the five-state territory.  He is also Canada’s chief negotiator for the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty with the United States.

Mr. Fabi joined the Trade Commissioner Service of External Affairs and International Trade Canada in 1992.  He worked in various geographic and trade policy divisions in Ottawa.  He was senior departmental adviser to the Minister of International Trade (2009 to 2010), Director for bilateral relations with South America and the Caribbean (2010 to 2013) and Executive Director of the North America Policy and Relations Division (2013 to 2015).

Mr. Fabi’s assignments abroad include trade commissioner at the embassy in Moscow (1995 to 1998), commercial counsellor at the embassy in Havana (2001 to 2005) and commercial counsellor at the embassy in Santiago (2005 to 2009). Mr. Fabi served as High Commissioner for Canada in Jamaica and the Bahamas (2015 to 2017). Before becoming Consul General in Denver, he was Executive Director, U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division (2017 to 2020).

 

Resources:

The Importance of Colorado’s Relationship with Canada featuring Sylvain Fabi and Kathryn Burkell

 

Register for the Symposium

 

Kate Burgess

Nature-Based Solutions: Healing nature with regenerative ocean farming

Kate Burgess is a Salazar Center partner and serves as NCEL’s Conservation Program Manager, where she enjoys collaborating with legislators on a variety of land, water, wildlife, and human issues. 


My dad and I spend a lot of time surfing.  We mostly go in the winter, not because we’re gluttons for punishment, but because that’s when the swell is allegedly the best on this side of the Atlantic. With our 7 mm wetsuits, booties, mittens, and hoods, we’ve adopted the proxy skin of seals, reminded only of the season when the sea is dusted with snow, or when an icy wave humbles the exposed skin on our face, leaving eyes stinging and heart pumping. 

Kate Burgess and her father

But recently, things have changed. The water in the winter isn’t as cold as it used to be. Last December, I didn’t need my mittens or booties. In the summer, I stopped wearing a wetsuit altogether, worried I’d overheat in the near-bath temperature waters of Nahant Beach that used to induce a sharp inhalation at the dip of a toe. 

Given these obvious impacts of climate change, my dad and I have been thinking about another way to spend our time in the sea: ocean farming. With the dramatic warming of our ocean, we’re wondering what we can do to intervene, and regenerative ocean farming – particularly kelp cultivation – is one nature-based solution with lots of promise.

Kelp acts as a highly effective carbon sink, a natural defense against storms, habitat for species, and can be harvested for animal feed, medicine and actually, a pretty decent beer. It addresses the twin climate and biodiversity crises concomitantly, since they are inextricably linked and need to be addressed as such.

Nature based solutions (NBS) like planting kelp are a means of leveraging the innate power and potential in earth’s systems, flora and fauna, and using them to promote resilience. Many of these solutions – including, for example, prescribed burns and oyster reef restoration – have been developed and practiced by Indigenous communities since time immemorial. Without proper recognition, consent for use of knowledge, compensation, and centralization of Indigenous leadership, nature based solutions can become anti-Indigenous, and an extension of the violent and racist colonialism that has and continues to persist in the environmental movement and beyond. Thoughtful consideration of the use of NBS is vital. 

These solutions are gaining momentum among communities, practitioners, decision makers, academics, and beyond, and I believe wholeheartedly that they’re one of the best means of making any real dent in recovering species and regulating our climate. 

One way that I’m seeing NBS rise is at the state level. My job as Conservation Program Manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) is to track land, water, and wildlife policies, share lessons learned with legislators across the U.S., and help them utilize the best available science and knowledge systems to advance equitable environmental policies. In 2023 alone, hundreds of state bills including NBS were introduced as a means of utilizing nature’s strengths as a solution to climate change and biodiversity loss.

State legislatures are essentially policy ‘test kitchens,’ except with less salt and no Guy Fieri. They’re where innovative measures can be piloted and repeated in other states, and ultimately with enough traction, at the federal and even international levels. States can set, maintain, and/or dismantle important legal narratives – especially when it comes to environmental issues. 

For example, Montana’s recent Supreme Court win for youth was largely the result of a rights-to-nature state policy called the “Green Amendment” that was enacted in 1970. Green Amendments are environmental justice tools that solidify our rights to clean air, water, and a healthy environment, putting them on par with our other fundamental civil liberties like free speech. A powerful means of securing health for present and future generations, Green Amendments are picking up speed; in 2023, 13 states introduced Green Amendments, and New York became the first state to enact one since 1971.  

With the recent Sackett SCOTUS decision gutting the Clean Water Act, experts say it’s up to states to “step in and fill the void.” With federal protection absent, states are tasked with playing defense for wetlands protection, a habitat coined “earth’s kidneys,” due to their tremendous capacity to filter toxins and sustain life for countless species.  

The potential of and pressure on States to play environmental offense and defense is high, but rarely is their capacity. Some, like New Mexico, Vermont, and Nevada (among others) are citizen legislatures, which means lawmakers have full-time year-round jobs on top of being a legislator, and many lack staff, compensation, or even a physical office. U.S. territories lack voting representatives in Congress, so what happens at the state/territory level matters immensely when federal representation is lacking.   

States are also treaty partners and have a unique government-to-government relationship with and responsibility to honor the sovereignty of Tribal Nations. Efforts like returning land back, supporting the rematriation of climate keystone wildlife like buffalo, and designing policies that require Free, Prior, and Informed Consent are essential in conjunction with designing state NBS. Indigenous communities are the original stewards of what is now known as the United States, and both traditional and contemporary ecological knowledge are some of the strongest tools available when it comes to bringing flora and fauna back, and regulating our climate – as long as that knowledge is respected and compensated.  

Ultimately, my colleagues and I at NCEL try to fill in where capacity is lacking in state legislatures, calling ourselves “remote environmental staff.” We have a 30,000’ view of what’s happening on environmental state policy level on issues relating to, and are at the ready to provide research, briefings, connections to other states and best available science and knowledge systems, anything to help make their jobs easier. Federal efforts like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act, and the Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap have helped make clear the trend towards prioritizing NBS and the onus on States and partners for implementation.

As state trends on nature based solutions continue to rise, we’ll continue to equip lawmakers with the best available science and knowledge/thinking as a means of addressing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. My dad and I are grateful for nature’s potential to heal, and we’ll join you in doing all we can to help sustain its gifts for future generations of surfers and beyond.

 


The Salazar Center is hosted the fifth annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact on October 11-12 in Denver, Colorado. The agenda focused on nature-positive solutions and how they can catapult our communities towards durable, high-impact outcomes for climate, biodiversity, and human well-being.

Emily Barbo

Symposium Speaker: Lydia Olander

The Salazar Center is proud to announce that Dr. Lydia Olander, Director of Nature-Based Resilience, White House Council on Environmental Quality, will be joining us in Denver, Colorado for the fifth-annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact.

Lydia Olander, PhD, directs the Ecosystem Services Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

Dr. Olander is the Director of Nature-Based Resilience at the White House Council on Environmental Quality where she leads work on nature-based solutions, working with both the conservation and climate resilience teams.  She joined CEQ from Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environment, Energy & Sustainability, where she is a program director, an adjunct professor at the Nicholas School of the Environment, and leads the National Ecosystem Services Partnership.  Her research includes ecosystem services, natural capital accounting, nature-based solutions, environmental markets, and climate adaptation and resilience.  She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Prior to joining the Nicholas Institute, she spent a year as an AAAS Congressional Science and Technology Fellow working with Senator Joseph Lieberman on environmental and energy issues. Before that she was a researcher with the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Global Ecology, where she studied the biogeochemical impacts of logging in the Brazilian Amazon and utilized remote sensing to extrapolate regional impacts. She received her PhD from Stanford University, where she studied nutrient cycling in tropical forests, and earned a master’s degree in forest science from Yale University.

Resources

Opportunities to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions

Roadmap to Nature-Based Solutions

Assessing the Effects of Management Activities on Biodiversity and Carbon Storage on Public and Private Lands and Waters in the United States

 

Register for the Symposium

Emily Barbo

Symposium Speaker: Lauren E. Oakes

The Salazar Center is proud to announce that Lauren E. Oakes, Adjunct Professor and Conservation Scientist at Stanford University, will be joining us in Denver, Colorado for the fifth-annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact. 

Lauren is a conservation scientist and science writer. She is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth System Science at Stanford University. In addition to publishing her climate- and forest-related research in peer-reviewed journals, Lauren has contributed to many media outlets. Lauren’s first book, In Search of the Canary Tree (Basic Books, 2018) won second place for the 2019 Rachel Carson Book Award and was a finalist for the 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Communication Award. She is working on a new narrative non-fiction book about the global reforestation movement. 

By training, Lauren an ecologist and human-natural systems scientist, which means she considers people and “nature” as inherently linked; human and environmental health are intertwined. She works on advancing best practices in climate adaptation and implementation of nature-based solutions. She writes because she loves storytelling, and she believes there’s a pressing need to make science and solutions to environmental problems more accessible to people across the planet.

Resources

Tackling the Science Usability Gap in a Warming World: Co-Producing Useable Climate Information for Natural Resource Management

Strengthening monitoring and evaluation of multiple benefits in conservation initiatives that aim to foster climate change adaptation

 

Register for the Symposium

 

Emily Barbo

Symposium Speaker: Peter Byck

The Salazar Center is proud to announce that Peter Byck will be joining us in Denver, Colorado for the fifth-annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact.

Peter is currently helping to lead a $10 million research project comparing Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing with conventional grazing; collaborating with 20 scientists and 10 farm families, focused on soil health & soil carbon storage, microbial/bug/bird biodiversity, water cycling and much more. The research also includes a new, 4-part docuseries called “Roots So Deep (you can see the devil down there)” which is all about the inventive farmers and maverick scientists building a path to solving climate change with hooves, heart and soil.  View the trailer here. 

Peter is a professor of practice at Arizona State University. 

Filmmaking Experience

Peter has over 25 years experience as a director and editor. His 1st documentary, garbage, won the South by Southwest Film Festival, screened in scores of festivals and played at the Museum of Modern Art and Lincoln Center. His 2nd documentary, carbon nation, has screened all over the world; it won the IVCA Clarion Award, the GreenMe Global Festival, and was runner-up for the EMA Award. Byck has directed shows for MTV starring Will Smith, John Travolta, Nicholas Cage, Drew Barrymore, Gwyneth Paltrow & David Duchovny. In addition, he has edited documentaries for Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” and “King Kong,” as well as documentaries and promotional shorts for Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, MTV, Vh1, BBC, Disney and MGM, including “The West Wing,” “The Matrix,” “Scrubs,” “ER” & many more.

Register for the Symposium

Emily Barbo

Symposium Speaker: Peter Stein

The Salazar Center is proud to announce that Peter Stein will be joining us in Denver, Colorado for the fifth-annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact.

Peter joined Lyme Timber Company in 1990 and has significant experience in conservation-oriented forestland and rural land purchases and dispositions. As Lyme’s Managing Director, Peter develops conservation sale strategies on properties being evaluated or managed by Lyme and also leads Lyme’s conservation advisory business.

As of 2020, Lyme raised more than one billion dollars of private capital for investment in high conservation value forests in the United States and Canada. Lyme’s conservation advisory business assists families and companies in the design and execution of conservation transactions, and has so far resulted in more than 900,000 acres of permanent land conservation in 12 states and the Province of Quebec.

Prior to his career with LTC Partners and Lyme, Peter was Senior Vice President of the Trust for Public Land where he directed conservation real estate acquisitions in the Northeast and Midwest. Peter lectures frequently at graduate schools and professional conferences on conservation investment structures and strategies. Peter is the co-founder of the Conservation Finance Network and the International Land Conservation Network. In addition, he is a former Board Chair of the Land Trust Alliance, served as a founding Commissioner of the Land Trust Accreditation Commission.

Peter earned a B.A. with Highest Honors from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1975 and was a Loeb Fellow and received a Certificate in Advanced Environmental Studies from Harvard University in 1981. 

Register for the Symposium

 

Shoshanna Dean

Shoshanna Dean

Nature-Based Terminology: Understanding the lingo that will get us to natural solutions 

Have you noticed the dizzying number of terms out there to describe the innovative work using nature to solve some of our most pressing environmental challenges? Nature based, natural climate, and nature positive are just a few of the phrases that have entered the vernacular of practitioners across many sectors from conservation to tech and politics. The language around this topic is becoming increasingly complex and nuanced, with multiple terms being used, often interchangeably. But what are the differences between these approaches and why does it matter? 

The Urgency of the Moment  

Our climate and biodiversity are facing dual interlinked crises. Experts have warned that if we do not act quickly on reducing our emissions, the Earth will warm beyond 2.0° C which will put humans and ecosystems in peril. More recently, one study found that about 30% of species have been globally threatened or driven extinct since the year 1500. With international agreements such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework marking major milestones for global cooperation, there is still a need for efforts to be coordinated to best meet these global goals. As more and more research shows that neither problem can be solved in a silo, there has been an urgent call to increase attention and resources on a tool that has been right in front of us all along—nature.  

Conservation strategies that utilize nature can effectively and efficiently deliver dual climate and biodiversity benefits, all while building resilience for humans and ecosystems. As these strategies increase in popularity, so does the terminology being used to describe them. These terms have been quickly adopted by NGOs, corporations, governments, and individuals to communicate their work, which has led to a lack of clarity as to the differences between each one.  

Let’s break down the differences between the three (there are a lot more) terms most commonly used in the field to help you navigate the nature-based vocabulary landscape. 

The umbrella term that includes strategies that use nature to address a problem and deliver climate, biodiversity, economic, and/community health benefits. 

Source: Nature-Based Solutions Initiative

The most popularly used term surrounding this issue is Nature-based solutions (NbS). This all-encompassing umbrella term is defined by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits.’’ First used in 2008 by the World Bank, the term has taken off in popularity, becoming mainstream in the worlds of business, conservation, politics, and more. Given the pace and scale of the adoption of this phrase, the term has faced widespread scrutiny from multiple groups. To address the critiques,  measures of accountability are quickly becoming developed by third parties. 

NbS can differ greatly in what they entail and address. Green infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, urban greening, coastal resilience projects can all be examples of NbS, though their ultimate goals may differ. What they have in common is that they are solutions that utilize nature to confront challenges faced by humans and ecosystems. The website Nature-Based Solutions can help you to break down some more of the different terms under the NbS umbrella. 

A subset of nature-based solutions, that address a climate-driven problem and deliver climate change mitigation, adaptation, and/or resilience benefits, typically focused on emissions reduction or carbon capture using nature. 

Source: Natural Climate Solutions PNAS

Under the umbrella of NbS, the term Natural-climate solutions is becoming more common as well. These strategies are part of NbS, but are activities that specifically aim to address a climate-driven problem and deliver climate change mitigation, adaptation, and/or resilience benefits, typically focused on emissions reduction or carbon capture through natural ecosystems (Nature4Climate). These actions should have measurable targets directly related to reducing or mitigating carbon emissions using nature, that ultimately contribute to the global Net Zero goal. Examples such as reforestation projects designed for carbon capture and regenerative agriculture that improves soil carbon can be included under the NcS umbrella.  

One scientific study found that NcS have the potential to mitigate up to 37% of our carbon emissions, making them a powerful addition to the suite of tools being used to address climate change and meet the global goal of holding global average temperature rise below 2° C. NcS can link to carbon markets to receive innovative financing mechanisms, or report towards global emissions targets, which has spurred a great deal of interest in their ability to tackle the climate crisis.  

Nature4Climate offers some great resources including this interactive map and a glossary of NcS terms.  

It should always be noted that utilizing nature to address climate challenges cannot be a substitute for the rapid decarbonization of our industrial world. These strategies must be used simultaneously if we are to sustain our world as we know it. 

A global goal to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and lead to a net increase of biodiversity by 2050.  

Source: A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature

In recent years, a new term has entered the dialogue: Nature Positive. As countries have been working to set targets for carbon emissions and sustainable development for years, it has become glaringly obvious that a similar time bound goal for nature to halt and reverse biodiversity loss is necessary. This term was originally introduced in 2021 when a group of experts came together to write "A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature.” where they argue for the need to set rigorous and measurable targets for biodiversity recovery. In their paper, the authors introduced the goal of “three measurable temporal objectives: Zero Net Loss of Nature from 2020, Net Positive by 2030, and Full Recovery by 2050” as demonstrated by the image below. 

Think of Nature Positive as the cousin of Net Zero. Where Net Zero specifically focuses on curbing carbon emissions, Nature Positive addresses biodiversity loss. There can be significant and impactful overlap between these strategies when used strategically. There are now many organizations and countries that have incorporated Nature Positive into their messaging and frameworks, the latest being the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.  

You may hear the term nature-positive solutions thrown around as well. Similar to natural climate solutions, nature positive “contributions” or “solutions” are what an individual entity can quantify of the maintenance and improvement of natural processes, ecosystems, and species over time at a project site, that ultimately contribute towards the global goal. Basically, individual entities cannot claim themselves to be “Nature Positive” but can contribute to helping reach this state through quantifiable actions that lead to an increase in biodiversity at a local scale. Check out Nature Positive by 2030 for more information on understanding the development of targets and standards if you want to learn more. 

Language Matters 

While the world has been strongly focused on climate goals for many years, biodiversity is at risk of being left behind. For years Nature-based solutions have drawn criticism from the conservation community, particularly when a project has detrimental impacts on an ecosystem or community, as well as inaccurately recording and claiming their contributions to carbon emissions. However, despite criticisms, the field is rapidly growing, with non-traditionally environmentally minded sectors such as business and tech beginning to invest large sums in nature. It’s critical for people, inside and outside the environmental field, to understand the differences between these terms and the strategies behind them. Just one example is that being able to appreciate the nuances will help consumers recognize egregious greenwashing and empower them to hold the transgressors accountable. What better way to stay on track to meet global goals? 

Still curious about what the future of these strategies looks like? Join the Salazar Center at the fifth annual International Symposium on Conservation Impact in Denver, Colorado, on October 11 and 12. We will explore how nature-positive solutions can help address both climate and biodiversity goals, to help strengthen the resilience of communities and ecosystems across North America.