Forum Biodiversity Conservation in a Post-COVID-19 Economy
Forum Biodiversity conservation in a post-COVID-19 economy
C HRIS S ANDBROOK,ERIK G ÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN and W ILLIAM M. ADAMS
Abstract The impacts of the COVID- pandemic extend dominated habitats, and enforced shutdowns making peo- to global biodiversity and its conservation. Although short- ple more aware of the species and ecosystems around term beneficial or adverse impacts on biodiversity have them, perhaps awakening public concern for the state of been widely discussed, there is less attention to the likely nature (e.g. Corlett et al., ; Helm, ). political and economic responses to the crisis and their im- The COVID- pandemic also has short-term downsides plications for conservation. Here we describe four possible for biodiversity and conservation, linked to the severe global alternative future policy responses: () restoration of the economic recession it has triggered. Firstly, subsistence cri- previous economy, () removal of obstacles to economic ses in developing countries have increased the consumptive growth, () green recovery and () transformative economic use of wild species, as people seek food or saleable commodi- reconstruction. Each alternative offers opportunities and ties (Paxton, ). Although nature can play an important risks for conservation. They differ in the agents they em- role as a safety net for well-being during difficult times, even phasize to mobilize change (e.g. markets or states) and in the established community-managed sustainable use systems extent to which they prioritize or downplay the protection risk failure under such pressures. Secondly, economic dis- of nature. We analyse the advantages and disadvantages of ruption has reduced the financial and human capital of con- these four options from a conservation perspective. We servation organizations. Problems include loss of income argue that the choice of post-COVID- recovery strategy for conservation that is derived directly or indirectly from has huge significance for the future of biodiversity, and wildlife-based enterprises such as tourism, government tax that conservationists of all persuasions must not shrink revenues being reallocated to social benefits (e.g. for the from engagement in the debates to come. many new unemployed), changing donor priorities to ad- dress the pandemic, and reduced funding from corporate Keywords Biodiversity conservation, conservation futures, or philanthropic donors (Sandbrook, ). Taken together COVID-, degrowth, Green New Deal, green recovery, these negative impacts may outweigh the immediate bene- political economy, transformative change fits for biodiversity from COVID- (Gardner, ). Beyond the short-term impacts of the pandemic, there is growing debate on the shape of international and national policies for the world after (or with) COVID-.Roy() Introduction describes the pandemic as ‘a portal, a gateway between one world and the next’. Governments and international institu- he COVID- pandemic has caused huge global social tions are now seeking to develop a route out of the portal of and economic disruption. A rapidly growing literature T the COVID-induced global recession (Helm, ; Inter- on the coronavirus explores the many dimensions of its national Monetary Fund, ). There are various potential social, economic and environmental impacts (e.g. Monbiot, pathways, each of which entails a very different relationship ; Zizek, ). There is increasing debate about the between human society and non-human life on Earth. Even implications of the pandemic for global biodiversity and ef- as much of the conservation sector is embroiled in a battle forts to conserve it. Some commentators identify short-term for survival in the midst of the crisis, it is essential to look to benefits for biodiversity, such as less pollution as a result the future and weigh the consequences of different post- of reduced human activity, wildlife reclaiming human- COVID- economic scenarios for conservation. Here we consider the conservation implications of four al-
CHRIS SANDBROOK (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0002-9938-4934) ternative future political and economic responses to the crisis. and WILLIAM M. ADAMS Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, We identified the scenarios on the basis of options that have Downing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK. E-mail [email protected] received wide attention before and during the COVID- cri- ERIK GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN* Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Oslo, sis in policy, the media and/or academic debates, and named Norway them according to their central objectives. These are: () res- *Also at: Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway toration of the previous economy, ( ) removal of obstacles to Received July . Revision requested August . economic growth, ( ) green recovery and ( ) transformative Accepted October . economic reconstruction (Table ). Each of these possible
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, Downloadeddistribution, from https://www.cambridge.org/core and reproduction in any medium,. IP address: provided 170.106.35.229 the original work, on is 26 properly Sep 2021 cited. at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsOryx, Page 1 of 7 © The Author(s),. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 2 C. Sandbrook et al.
TABLE 1 Four possible future policy responses to the COVID- crisis and their implications for conservation.
Social & economic Environmental Key Key Attitude to Impacts on policies policies investments divestments Key actors COVID-19 conservation Restoration of the previous economy Austerity, with Mix of public pol- As before As before Governments Temporary blip. Existing conser- welfare packages & icies & market- COVID crises COVID crises & private sec- We can get vation projects & stimulus to private based instruments tor/markets through this. areas will survive & financial sectors but biodiversity loss will continue
Removal of obstacles to economic growth Stimulus to private Sell off protected Fossil fuels, Environment Stronger Blame nature: Increased fund- & financial sectors, areas, environmen- aviation in- & welfare market eradicate species ing available for flexibilization of tal deregulation, dustry, mining policies orientation harbouring conservation but labour markets opening up of nat- & logging disease likely to acceler- ural capital to ate biodiversity exploitation loss, resource depletion, & in- creases in carbon emissions
Green recovery Welfare packages & Technologies for Renewables & Fossil fuels Mix of public Opportunity to If decoupling government-led carbon capture & other green policies & launch Green achieved, climate green job creation storage, renewables, technologies market based New Deal change slows as an economic use of green infor- in search of instruments down, pollution stimulus mation & commu- ecoefficiency & habitat loss nication technology may decrease for raising energy efficiency, develop- ment of markets for ecosystem services, government-led green job creation
Transformative economic reconstruction Sufficiency, Adoption of alter- Basic income, Fossil fuels, Mix of public Decentralized Climate change through basic in- native indicators of care sector & military, avi- policies & production & less will slow down, come, max–min progress, work time essential ation industry, grassroots mobile society re- pollution & re- income ratios, pro- reduction, deeper services advertising movements duces pandemic source depletion gressive taxation, reforms in tax, fiscal risks, opportunity will decrease, work time sharing & monetary policy, for transformative habitat loss may & reduction trade & finance, re- change increase source & emission caps
futures carries a different range of opportunities and risks. We the least reform or disruption to existing institutions, legal explore these possibilities from a conservation perspective, systems or ways of life. drawing on a range of blogs and commentaries published dur- This scenario has some immediate advantages for con- ing the crisis as well as on the peer reviewed literature. servation, because it would facilitate the restoration of pre- vious sources of funding. Before COVID-, international conservation organizations relied on tax revenues, corporate Restoration of the previous economy funding (using some spare profit to gift to NGOs), and do- nations from Trusts and high net worth individuals. Much The first scenario is an attempt to restore previous forms on-the-ground conservation was dependent on wildlife and levels of economic activity. This return to something re- tourism, whether through business–community partner- sembling business as usual is likely to be the most appealing ships (including direct wages, indirect economic contribu- for politicians, businesses and publics because it requires tions, dividend or lease fee payments), or in business–state
Oryx, Page 2 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 Conservation in a post‐COVID‐19 economy 3
partnerships (taxation, jobs, fees). The grounding of inter- for the poor, if reduced environmental regulation allowed national flights and the lockdown of booked and potential increased natural resource use, although such benefits tourists have brought crisis to many wildlife tourism busi- would be short-term and unsustainable. nesses and those dependent on their revenue (Paxton, ). Unfortunately, any such economic benefits would be at A return to business as usual would allow these activities the expense of biodiversity. Maximizing growth would in ef- to resume, enabling conservation organizations to survive, fect entail accelerated biodiversity loss (Otero et al., ) continue to employ their staff and to implement their exist- and further commodification of nature to generate profit ing programmes of work. (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, ). At its worst for On the downside, the pre-COVID- economic model conservation, this scenario could even include the deliberate was deeply unsustainable at a global scale (Adams, ). extermination of species deemed to harbour potential future Shutdown has brought declines in CO emissions (the zoonotic diseases, such as pangolins or bats (Zhao, ), or Global Footprint Network placed Earth Overshoot Day even ecosystems. on August, three weeks later than in , as a result of lockdown; Global Footprint Network Earth Overshoot Day, ). Present patterns of economic growth are key Green recovery drivers of biodiversity loss (Otero et al., ), present and future climate change (Jackson & Victor, ), and re- A hope of many conservationists is that recovery should source depletion (Haberl et al., ). There are therefore aspire to deliver the same level of economic activity (with strong reasons for conservationists to be concerned about all its potential in terms of wealth creation and poverty a return to old ways, and some conservation writers have alleviation), but based on technologies with radically re- identified this moment as an opportunity to take a different duced environmental impacts. This idea of green recovery path (e.g. Stafford et al., ). has some political traction (e.g. Harvey, ). This is a classic ecomodernist vision, a familiar part of thedebateaboutsustainabledevelopmentsincethes Removal of obstacles to economic growth (Adams, ). It lay at the heart of the Rio + Conference, under the name of a Green Economy. The report Towards a As lockdowns end, governments will be desperate to reboot Green Economy envisaged growth in global income and their economies to get money into pockets and into their employment driven by both public and private investment treasuries. As a result, they may push beyond the restoration (UNEP, ). It argued that the Green Economy could ‘deliver of the previous economy (described above) by removing all improved human well-being and social equity, while signifi- obstacles to short term economic growth. After the cantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities’ economic crash, many governments selectively removed (UNEP, ,p.). This shift implies an economy that is environmental regulations to boost return on private still capitalist, but cleverer and greener, where growth, mar- investment and promote growth and employment, and kets and corporations are turned into conservation allies and downgraded protected area designations (Apostolopoulou where biodiversity conservation becomes an agent of green & Adams, ). In the face of an even greater global reces- economic development (Gasparatos & Willis, ). sion caused by the pandemic, governments are likely to feel Within this perspective, the idea of so-called green a similar temptation to take any steps necessary to maximize growth is the dominant policy response advocated to ad- economic growth. This could include bailing out polluting dress the environmental crises by the European Union, industries such as aviation, relaxing environmental standards, United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and opening up natural resources to exploitation—in effect and Development, and the World Bank, among others. The spending down natural capital reserves to pay for COVID- core premise is that continued growth is compatible with debt. Several countries have already allowed new min- conservation because increased efficiency from technologic- ing concessions in protected areas since the crisis began al progress and market signals will facilitate the substitution (e.g. Ecuador and India; Sandbrook, ), and the media of natural resources, leading us to a dematerialized and de- are reporting ongoing or planned dismantlement of envir- carbonized economy in which growth is decoupled from re- onmental regulations in high biodiversity countries such as source use and pollution. The related notion of a Green New Brazil and the USA (Holden, ;Spring,). Deal gained traction in the aftermath of the recession Maximizing economic growth would have some benefits (Barbier, ) and now again in discussions around eco- for certain conservation actors. It would enable govern- nomic recovery after COVID- (e.g. Mace, ). The ments, philanthropists and citizens to start donating to, Green New Deal involves a wide wide-ranging set of goals, investing in and purchasing from the conservation sec- often emphasizing green job creation and public investment tor more quickly than under our alternative scenarios. It in the energy transition to decarbonize the economy. The could also offer a short-term livelihoods social safety net USA version includes proposals for % clean and
Oryx, Page 3 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 4 C. Sandbrook et al.
renewable electricity by and zero net emissions by that explicitly aim at stabilizing or reducing the scale of , while creating million jobs to build and install en- the economy (D’Alisa et al., ; Jackson, ). Socio- ergy infrastructure (Whyte, ). Goals of the European ecological transitions to reduce economic metabolism Green Deal include boosting the efficient use of resources (flows of energy and materials) down to a level compatible by moving to a circular economy, restoring biodiversity with planetary boundaries have been long advocated by and cutting pollution (European Commission, ). ecological economists, often in the form of a steady state The idea of green growth is popular among so-called new economy (Daly, ). For wealthy industrial economies conservationists, who make the case for biodiversity conser- this idea is increasingly thought about under the label of vation as a key driver of economic development (Kareiva degrowth. Degrowth advocates a sustainable and equitable et al., ). The expectation is that intensive use of tech- downscaling of production and consumption. In contrast nology will allow land to be spared for rewilding and to what is often assumed, degrowth is different from reces- the recovery of biodiversity (Asafu-Adjaye et al., ). sion (negative GDP). The focus of downscaling is on the Conservationists would partner with corporate power to physical (not monetary) size of the economy (Kallis, ). integrate the value of nature’s benefits into the economy. Once a marginal proposal, the idea of post-growth has Instead of pursuing the protection of biodiversity for biodi- gained leverage as mounting research has revealed a lack versity’s sake, a new conservation based on enhancing nat- of empirical support to the thesis of decoupling sustained ural systems that benefit people would reduce conservation by green growth advocates (Jackson & Victor, ). Al- conflicts (Kareiva et al., ). though cases of decoupling between growth and environ- Much recent conservation practice is consistent with new mental impact at national or regional level bring some hope conservation thinking, but conservation’s growing depen- (Le Quéré et al., ; Marques et al., ), globally growth dence on private sector actors and market-based initiatives remains highly coupled to carbon emissions and resource (rather than relying on state action) looks vulnerable in the use (Haberl et al., ), as well as to biodiversity loss light of the limited capacity of businesses to sustain public (Otero et al., ). The idea of post-growth has also gained action during the current crisis without direct state subsidy. renewed attention as COVID- has shown that large-scale There are also risks in commoditization and little evidence economic changes can happen fast if there is political will that market-based instruments can bring effective conser- for it (Everingham & Chassagne, ). vation outcomes (Gómez-Baggethun & Muradian, ). Proponents of transformative ecological–economic re- Another drawback of green growth is that there are few or construction advocate radical reorganization of the econ- no signs of decoupling of growth and environmental impact omy, including reforms in national accounts (to account at the pace needed to reach sustainability targets (Jackson & for the environmental costs of growth), green tax reforms Victor, ; Haberl et al., ). (shifting taxes from labour to resources and pollution), sub- Economic arguments for large-scale public investment in sidy reforms (from nuclear and fossils to renewables), re- green technologies will face competition from other press- forms in finance (divestment from fossil fuels) and trade ing claims for direct social investment, and subsidy and in- (green tariffs), reduced working time (to stabilize consump- vestment in other sectors such as primary extraction of raw tion and combat unemployment), and resource and pollu- materials or transportation (Helm, ). There is a risk tion caps (at levels compatible with the Earth’s regenerative that the slogan of green recovery will be co-opted to cam- and assimilative capacities); for an overview see Daly (). ouflage traditional strategies of large-scale infrastructure In a manifesto on the future after the COVID- crisis, de- development (Harvey, ). growth advocates demand divestment from fossil fuels, mil- itary and advertising to liberate resources for healthcare, education, renewable energy, ecological agriculture, and a Transformative economic reconstruction basic income (Barlow et al., ). The critique of growth has been linked to the debates The last of our four visions of the future economy reflects around biodiversity conservation (Büscher & Fletcher, the numerous calls (e.g. Stafford et al., ) for a sub- ). Conservationists critical of growth argue that to stop stantial change in conventional growth-based models, biodiversity loss, the metabolism of the world economy that ‘reward more instead of better consumption, private needs to change. Because growth and biodiversity loss are vs public investment in [hu]man-made vs natural capital’ linked via a set of mechanisms triggered by increased resource (Martinez-Alier et al., ,p., emphases in the origin- use (Czech et al., ; Marques et al., ), proponents sug- al). There have been many alternative visions of post-growth gest that a post-growth economy would bring large benefits economies over the last half century (Adams, ). The for conservation (Otero et al., ). COVID- has revealed term post-growth encompasses a spectrum of perspectives, the brittleness of extended just-in-time delivery chains, the ranging from those that adopt an agnostic stance towards health risks of globalized hyper-mobility and the implica- growth (van den Bergh, ; Raworth, ), to those tions of a model of conservation (especially in the developing
Oryx, Page 4 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 Conservation in a post‐COVID‐19 economy 5
world) that is built around a global tourist industry, corporate deep-rooted political and economic structures that are the investment and wealthy donors. A post-growth world offers ultimate drivers of biodiversity loss. an alternative path for conservation as well as the economy. A key constraint on new thinking is that current conser- On the downside, the case has been made that whereas vation depends on funds from sources originating in rich degrowth can be appealing among an educated middle industrialized countries whose economies are inextricably class for which frugality is a choice, it is less likely to appeal dependent on unsustainable resource and energy use. This to those in lower-income social groups, for whom frugality creates a set of perverse incentives for conservation orga- is a social condition (Muradian, ), and who account for nizations. Although they may wish to see transformative larger parts of the population in biodiversity-rich develop- changes to the pre-COVID- economic system, in many ing countries. The question also remains of how much wild cases their short-term survival depends on a return to that nature will survive in a degrowth scenario of decentralized, same system. Success in re-establishing existing economic less intensive production. It would bring a greener and more arrangements (and the reforging of powerful partnerships just world, but most likely one of intensively used land- within the corporate sector) would restore systems of re- scapes. Moreover, increased food production in the global source consumption that are unsustainable and are driving North to replace imports from the global South would be accelerated biodiversity loss (Otero et al., ). This para- likely to re-intensify rural land use, and reduce current op- dox can be dealt with locally using various spatial or tem- portunities for ecological restoration. Many northern con- poral fixes, such as ignoring the broader contradictions of servationists would see this as an unacceptable outcome. long-haul nature-based tourism so long as it produces short- On a more practical level, it is challenging to imagine a term benefits for particular species or ecosystems. This has new financial model for conservation in a post-growth, been the dominant approach taken in the past (Pascual et al., and potentially post-carbon world. ), but COVID- has revealed its limitations. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio- diversity and Ecosystem Services states that ‘goals for con- ... Discussion serving and sustainably using nature [ ]cannotbemetby current trajectories [...], and may only be achieved through The four scenarios we have outlined offer both advantages transformative changes across economic, social, political and and disadvantages for conservation. Each suffers from its technological factors’ (IPBES, ,p.). The COVID- cri- own limitations and represents different hopes that may in- sis opens a unique window of opportunity to push for deeper clude a dose of wishful thinking. For example, post-growth change, towards transforming the metabolism of the econ- advocates criticize green growth advocates for excessive tech- omy such that it does not continue to erode biodiversity nological optimism, and these in turn criticize post-growth and ecological life-support systems. This involves adopting for its political idealism (Gómez-Baggethun, ). Some of a long term vision and assuming short term costs. It might the policy responses discussed here are shared by different mean the loss of some conservation funds, projects, and scenarios. For example, although usually connected to notions even organizations that are dependent on unsustainable of green growth (e.g. UNEP, ; European Commission, aspects of the pre-COVID- economic model. ), the Green New Deal offers some flexibility and room Whatever form of conservation they believe in, the for engagement with both green growth and degrowth per- choice of post-COVID- recovery by national governments spectives, both of which overlap in some proposed policies and international organizations has huge significance for the such as carbon taxation and investment in energy efficiency future of biodiversity. These choices are highly political, and renewables (O’Neill, ). but conservationists of all persuasions must not shrink from Our personal view is that only the transformative eco- engagement in the debates to come. They have already nomic reconstruction scenario offers a truly sustainable started, and will shape the diversity of the biosphere into future. However, conservationists have dissimilar beliefs on the nd century and beyond. a wide range of topics (Sandbrook et al., ) and many will disagree with our perspective, and legitimately so. Acknowledgements EG-B received partial funding from the stra- tegic resources of the Norwegian Institute of Nature Research (project Whichever scenario one may favour, we believe that we are number: 81151842). CS & WMA received no specific grant from any living through a unique moment at which fundamen- funding agency, or commercial or not-for-profit sectors. tal change in the relationship between nature and society is possible. Conservationists of every hue agree that the Author contributions Analysis and writing: all authors. prognosis for biodiversity was poor before the advent Conflicts of interest None. of COVID-, and it is important to think clearly about which pathway they would prefer to see taken, and what Ethical standards The research conducted for this article abided by they could be doing to make this more likely to happen. the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. It did not include any pri- We believe this should entail serious engagement with the mary research and therefore an ethical review process was not required.
Oryx, Page 5 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 6 C. Sandbrook et al.
References environment//jun//boris-johnson-under-pressure-to- ensure-green-recovery-uk-coronavirus [accessed June ]. ADAMS, W.M. () Green Development: Environment and HELM,D.( ) The environmental impacts of the coronavirus. Sustainability in a Developing World. th edition. Routledge, Environmental and Resource Economics, , –. London, UK. HOLDEN,E.() Trump dismantles environmental protections APOSTOLOPOULOU,E.&ADAMS, W.M. () Neoliberal capitalism under cover of coronavirus. The Guardian, May . and conservation in the post-crisis era: the dialectics of ‘Green’ and theguardian.com/us-news//may//trump-environmental- ‘Un-green’ grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode, , –. blitzkrieg-coronavirus [accessed June ]. ASAFU-ADJAYE, J., BLOMQUIST, L., BRAND, S., BROOK, B.W., INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ( ) Global Stability Report, DEFRIES, R., ELLIS, E. et al. () An Ecomodernist Manifesto. April . imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/ / / / Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, USA. global-financial-stability-report-april- [accessed June ]. BARBIER, E.B. () A Global Green New Deal: Rethinking the IPBES ( ) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Economic Recovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the BARLOW, N., CHERTKOVSKAYA, E., GREBENJAK, M., LIEGEY,V., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and SCHNEIDER, F., SMITH, T. et al. () Degrowth: new roots for Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. the economy: re-imagining the future after the corona crisis. JACKSON,T.() Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the framaforms.org/degrowth-open-letter- [accessed Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge, London, UK. June ]. JACKSON,T.&VICTOR, P.A. () Unraveling the claims for (and – BÜSCHER,B.&FLETCHER R. () The Conservation Revolution: against) green growth. Science, , . Radical Ideas for Saving Nature Beyond the Anthropocene. KALLIS,G.() Degrowth. Columbia University Press, New York, Verso, London, UK. USA. CORLETT, R.T., PRIMACK, R.B., DEVICTOR, V., MAAS, B., GOSWAMI, KAREIVA, P., LALASZ,R.&MARVIER,M.( ) Conservation in the V.R., BATES, A.E. et al. () Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic Anthropocene: beyond solitude and fragility. Breakthrough Journal, on biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, , . , –. CZECH, B., MILLS BUSA, J.H. & BROWN, R.M. () Effects of LE QUÉRÉ, C., KORSBAKKEN, J.I., WILSON, C., TOSUN, J., ANDREW, R., economic growth on biodiversity in the United States. Natural ANDRES, R.J. et al. () Drivers of declining CO emissions in Resources Forum, , –. developed economies. Nature Climate Change, , e. ‘ ’ D’ALISA, G., DEMARIA,F.&KALLIS, G. (eds) () Degrowth: MACE,M.( ) Normal was a crisis : Why the Green New Deal is the A Vocabulary for a New Era. Routledge, London, UK. perfect response for the post-COVID- economy. Edie, April DALY,H.()Top policies for a steady-state economy. Daily . edie.net/library/-Normal-was-a-crisis---Why-the-Green- News, October . steadystate.org/top--policies-for-a-steady- New-Deal-offers-hope-to-the-post-Covid--economy/ state-economy [accessed June ]. [accessed June ]. DALY, H.E. () From Uneconomic Growth to a Steady-State MARQUES, A., MARTINS, I.S., KASTNER, T., PLUTZAR, C., THEURL, Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. M.C., EISENMENGER, N. et al. () Increasing impacts of EUROPEAN COMMISSION () What is the European Green Deal? land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment// population and economic growth. Nature Ecology & Evolution, What_is_the_European_Green_Deal_en.pdf.pdf [accessed , –. June ]. MARTÍNEZ-ALIER, J., PASCUAL, U., VIVIEN, F.-D. & ZACCAI,E. EVERINGHAM,P.&CHASSAGNE,N.() Post COVID- ecological ( ) Sustainable de-growth: mapping the context, criticisms and and social reset: moving away from capitalist growth models future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, towards tourism as Buen Vivir. Tourism Geographies, , –. , –. GARDNER,C.() Nature’s comeback? No, the coronavirus MONBIOT,G.( ) Airlines and oil giants are on the brink. No pandemic threatens the world’s wildlife. The Conversation, April government should offer them a lifeline. The Guardian, April . theconversation.com/natures-comeback-no-the-coronavirus- . theguardian.com/commentisfree//apr//airlines-oil- pandemic-threatens-the-worlds-wildlife- [accessed June giants-government-economy [accessed June ]. ]. MURADIAN,R.() Frugality as a choice vs frugality as a social GASPARATOS,A.&WILLIS, K.J. (eds) () Biodiversity in the Green condition. Is de-growth doomed to be a Eurocentric project? Economy. Routledge, London, UK. Ecological Economics, , –. ’ GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY () O NEILL, D.W. ( ) Beyond green growth. Nature Sustainability, overshootday.org [accessed June ]. , –. GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN,E.() More is more: scaling political ecology OTERO, I., FARRELL, K.N., PUEYO, S., KALLIS, G., KEHOE, L., HABERL, within limits to growth. Political Geography, , . H. et al. () Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN,E.&MURADIAN,R.() In markets we trust? Conservation Letters, ,e . Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem PASCUAL, U., PALOMO, I., ADAMS, W.M., CHAN, K., DAWS, T.M., services governance. Ecological Economics, , –. GAREMENDIA, E. et al. () Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN,E.&RUIZ-PÉREZ,M.() Economic a blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Letters, , . Progress in Physical Geography, , –. PAXTON,M.() The coronavirus threat to wildlife tourism and HABERL, H., WIEDENHOFER, D., VIRÁG, D., KALT, G., PLANK, B., conservation. UNDP Blog, April . undp.org/content/undp/ BROCKWAY,P.etal.() A systematic review of the evidence on en/home/blog/ /the-coronavirus-threat-to-wildlife-tourism- decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: and-conservation.html [accessed June ]. synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, , . RAWORTH,K.() Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think HARVEY,F.() Boris Johnson under pressure to ensure green Like a st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, recovery in UK. The Guardian, June . theguardian.com/ Hartford, USA.
Oryx, Page 6 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039 Conservation in a post‐COVID‐19 economy 7
ROY,A.() The pandemic is a portal. Financial Times, April . UNEP () Global Green New Deal. Policy brief. ft.com/content/dfe-eb-ea-fe-fcdeca [accessed greengrowthknowledge.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/ June ]. A_Global_Green_New_Deal_Policy_Brief_UNEP.pdf [accessed SANDBROOK,C.() Covid and conservation on the ground. June ]. Thinking Like a Human Blog, May . thinkinglikeahuman. UNEP () Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable com////coronavirus-and-conservation-a-global-situation- Development and Poverty Eradication. United Nations Environment report [accessed June ]. Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. SANDBROOK, C., FISHER, J.A., HOLMES, G., LUQUE-LORA,R.& VAN DEN BERGH, J.C. () Environment vs growth—A criticism KEANE,A.() The global conservation movement is diverse but of “degrowth” and a plea for ‘a-growth’. Ecological Economics, not divided. Nature Sustainability, , –. , –. SPRING,J.() Brazil minister calls for environmental deregulation WHYTE,C.() Can a Green New Deal boost the US economy and while public distracted by COVID. Reuters, May . reuters. save the planet? New Scientist. newscientist.com/article/- com/article/us-brazil-politics-environment/brazil-minister-calls- can-a-green-new-deal-boost-the-us-economy-and-save-the-planet for-environmental-deregulation-while-public-distracted-by-covid- [accessed June ]. idUSKBNYY [accessed June ]. ZHAO,H.() COVID- drives new threat to bats in China. STAFFORD, R., CROKER,A.&JONES, P.J.S. () After coronavirus. Science, , . Ecologist, April . theecologist.org//apr//after- ZIZEK,S.() Pandemic! Covid- Shakes the World. OR Books, coronavirus [accessed June ]. New York, USA.
Oryx, Page 7 of 7 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001039 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.229, on 26 Sep 2021 at 01:38:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001039