Biodiversity Scientists Must Fight the Creeping Rise of Extinction Denial

comment Biodiversity scientists must fght the creeping rise of extinction denial Eforts by conservation scientists to draw public attention to the biodiversity crisis are increasingly met with denialist rhetoric. We summarize some of the methods used by denialists to undermine scientifc evidence on biodiversity loss, and outline pathways forward for the scientifc community to counter misinformation. Alexander C. Lees, Simon Attwood, Jos Barlow and Ben Phalan

enial of scientific evidence and from temperate ecosystems to make claims 75 species listed as ‘Extinct in the Wild’, rejection of scientific methods about reduced impacts in the tropics; (3) are only hanging on due to expensive, last Dare not new phenomena, but ‘Implicatory denial’, in which data are not resort, conservation interventions8. represent an increasingly serious problem, denied, but implications are, for example especially when driven by politically arguing that transformative changes to Interpretive denial: ‘Economic growth well-connected and well-funded antagonists socio–ecological systems are not required alone will fix the extinction crisis’. seeking to sabotage evidence-based to avert species extinctions. Extinction denialists often invoke an policy for political and/or financial gain. We address each of these in detail, Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)9 Terms such as ‘science denial’ and ‘science before exploring ways to counter erroneous response of biodiversity to development denialism’ are employed as monikers for claims and logical fallacies that we (Supplementary Table 1), arguing that such anti-scientific enterprises, seeking to understand to be ‘extinction denialism’ pressures on the environment eventually discredit, for example, the health impacts or ‘biodiversity loss denialism’. decrease with rising income levels. Yet of smoking, climate science, the teaching the EKC hypothesis is misleading in this of evolution in schools and vaccination Literal denial: ‘Species extinctions were context. First, empirical evidence of the campaigns. There is an emerging body predominantly a historical problem’. relationship between economic development of literature characterizing the nature Extinction deniers often downplay the and forest cover only supports the loss part of these activities, and the personal, extinction crisis by framing it as a historical of the curve10. Second, the EKC is typically organizational and economic interlinkages problem and a trivial contemporary a local rather than a global phenomenon, between them1. challenge (Supplementary Table 1). By and global environmental indicators of

The rise of organized denial of the focusing attention on the loss of megafauna indirect impacts such as CO2 emissions, biodiversity crisis was foreseen by in prehistory owing to overhunting and waste production and energy consumption conservation biologists2 and the growing rapid loss of island biodiversity in historic are still increasing monotonically. wave of denial finally broke following times, it is suggested we have passed through Country-specific assessments of EKC often the release of the Intergovernmental these extinction filters and reached the ignore the outsourcing of environmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and ‘other side’ of the crisis. This ‘literal degradation to poorer countries. Denialists Ecosystem Services (IPBES) summary for denial’ line of argument misses several also highlight the resurgence of certain policymakers which generated substantial key facets of the extinction crisis, notably large charismatic species such as wolves media coverage. In its wake, a swathe of that species, including island endemics, and bears in Europe and North America opinion pieces criticized the report and are still being lost5 and that the catastrophic as evidence that we are through the worst attacked both the reputations of the report’s loss, degradation and fragmentation of of the extinction crisis. However, this authors and the process of estimating whole ecosystems, combined with climate is only a partial success story (Box 1). the total number of species threatened change, is triggering a new episode of Similar successes in the tropics are highly with extinction3. continental extinctions6. This is particularly unlikely: species richness, species packing acute in the highly biodiverse tropics and and habitat and niche specialization are The three categories of denial where extinctions are just the endpoint all far higher at tropical latitudes, while These attempts to downplay the biodiversity of a long process of extirpation and geographic range sizes are much smaller. crisis follow the ‘Scientific Certainty defaunation7 (Box 1, Supplementary These factors mean that tropical biodiversity Argumentation Methods’ playbook, which Table 2). Moreover, biologists are typically is far more extinction-prone then temperate includes all three categories of denial conservative in declaring possible biodiversity11. The unfortunate truth is envisioned by Stanley Cohen in a framework extinctions, and across the world there that there are many imminent or actual first applied to the study of atrocities and are 143 amphibians, 41 reptiles, 29 extinctions in highly deforested tropical other unwelcome truths4. These are: (1) mammals and 22 bird species classed by regions (Supplementary Table 2). Finally, ‘Literal denial’, an assertion that something the International Union for Conservation the so-called ‘Forest Transition’ model9, is untrue, for example the evidence for of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened which envisages an EKC-style relationship greatly elevated rates of species threat Species (https://www.iucnredlist.org) as between forest cover and development, and extinction; (2) ‘Interpretive denial’, in ‘Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)’. fails to differentiate between native forests which raw facts are not disputed but given Many of these species are likely already and monoculture plantations of oil palm, a different spin, for example using evidence gone, while many more, including the conifers and eucalyptus, despite the

1440 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 4 | November 2020 | 1440–1443 | www.nature.com/natecolevol comment

Box 1 | Examples of species and systems misrepresented by extinction denialists

Literal denial: for example, Interpretive denial: for example, Implicatory denial: for example, underestimating and overlooking resurgent carnivores are not umbrella misrepresenting land sparing as a silver recent extinctions. species for all taxa. bullet for conservation. Te Atlantic Rainforest has been Te resurgence of the Eurasian Vast soy bean (Glycine max) felds long touted by deniers as an example of brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) (b), (c) at the ecotone of the Amazon and a biome that had lost 90% of its habitat grey wolf (Canis lupus), Eurasian lynx Cerrado biomes in Brazil. Land sparing without a single documented extinction. (Lynx lynx) and their prey base in — minimizing the land area of agriculture Yet the Alagoas foliage-gleaner (Philydor Europe refects land abandonment and while protecting and restoring as large novaesi) (a) and the cryptic treehunter rural depopulation associated with an area of native vegetation as possible (Cichlocolaptes mazarbarnetti) were globalization and mechanization of — may well be a useful strategy to reduce confrmed as extinct in 2019, each only agricultural production systems but extinctions associated with habitat loss. ever known from two forest fragments, should not be interpreted as a recovery Various studies have confrmed that and seven other species have not been of biodiversity more widely. Tese protection of large areas of native vegetation seen for a decade or are down to the last population recoveries have come will be essential for the conservation of the few individuals (Supplementary Table 2). alongside losses in farm income and many specialized and threatened species that Extinction deniers downplaying the rural employment. Other factors include inhabit the tropics17. However, agricultural relatively small number of documented reduced human–wildlife confict and intensifcation alone is no guarantee that extinctions are wrong for the same reasons better legislative protection. Large land will be spared for nature, and if it as those who sought to downplay the mammals are typically habitat generalists increases profts, there is a risk that this impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and their recolonization of managed will encourage further deforestation. in early 2020. Just as the true number habitats like European forests has not been Furthermore, not all methods for increasing of cases was underestimated because of accompanied by a resurgence of habitat yields are equal. Tere is a need to minimize the widespread lack of testing, the true specialists. Old growth forest dependent negative environmental externalities, make number of extinctions is far higher than white-backed woodpeckers (Dendrocopos sure that key ecosystem services are still those observed, because the majority of the leucotos), for example, remain on the cusp provided at landscape scales, and ensure Earth’s species have not even been described of extinction even in heavily forested that intensifcation does not simply result — especially the rarer and more specialized Scandinavia. Te saproxylic beetles they in the increased demand that characterizes species, which are most vulnerable. And, as rely upon are associated with ancient trees the great acceleration. Land uses that with the initially unthinkable predictions of and natural large-scale fre regimes with incorporate people, such as indigenous epidemiologists, conservation scientists are long return times and are consequently reserves, are among the most efective at beginning to see their grim predictions of extremely rare or extinct in Europe’s conserving forest cover, and are an essential extinction debt borne out. managed forests. complement to strictly protected areas.

a b c

Credit: Ciro Albano (a); Richard Moores (b); Alexander C. Lees (c).

expansion of plantations being an important to highlight only a subset of factors imperil biodiversity globally7. Invasive cause of biodiversity loss. Many global forest causing contemporary extinctions, such species, overharvesting and pathogens are models are not sensitive to the difference12 as overharvesting and predation by undoubtedly major conservation issues and conflating plantations with natural non-native species, while choosing not responsible for global extinctions of many forests has long been a key feature of the to mention habitat loss that affects the — particularly insular — species, and denialist playbook. majority of species on the Red List. They technological fixes form part of the portfolio then suggest that solutions are simple, of conservation interventions. However, Implicatory denial: ‘Technological fixes requiring no change or business-as-usual these threats are often exacerbated by habitat and targeted conservation interventions actions, even though it is increasing resource loss and climate change, and all must be will overcome extinction’. Extinction demands and current socio–ecological addressed together. A disproportionate denialists are often selective, choosing and economic modes of organization that focus on a subset of drivers is a form

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 4 | November 2020 | 1440–1443 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 1441 comment

evidence that wind energy — while not Table 1 | Communicating biodiversity loss with the public in the context of Fischhoff’s without negative impacts — is a relatively Stages of Risk Communication16 minor threat compared to habitat loss Fischhof (1995) Conservation scientist communication recommendations and climate change, or even the impact of stages other forms of energy production, such as extraction of shale gas or coal. Here, Get the numbers right Business-as-usual rigorous conservation science conservation scientists need to recognize and do not over- or the underlying anti-renewable energy under-exaggerate agenda and can respond by putting threats Tell them the numbers Disseminatie scientific findings and species loss projections far more in context. Scientists can provide context publicly, engaging with social, print and televisual media and with politicians, on the impacts of wind farms by comparing policymakers and other stakeholders (for example, industry, corporate and impacts per unit of electricity produced financial). Make messaging and communications relevant, accessible and in different ways. They also have the compelling for target audiences. knowledge to explain and advise on how to Explain what we mean Describe consequences of species declines and loss of ecosystem services, further minimize those impacts by proper by the numbers zoonoses, ecotourism and connection with nature. Consequences must siting and management. resonate with audience. To generate support for solutions, Show they have (1) Show that the public has insisted that biodiversity loss be stopped in the conservation scientists need to show that accepted similar risks past (for example, success of the Save the Whales campaign). (2) Show they similar challenges have been overcome in in the past have accepted similar risks (to those of mitigation and adaptation) in the past the past, that the risks are acceptable and (for example, phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and tighter pollution that the benefits exceed the costs. It is also legislation). necessary to engage people’s emotions, Show that it is a good Remind the public of the ancillary benefits of action to combat biodiversity using examples from civil rights to the deal for them loss, wilder countryside, green jobs and food production sustainability. Play ozone hole to acid rain to smoking bans. to intrinsic values of nature conservation (for example, emotional connection These clearly show that dramatic change is to nature) and utilitarian benefits (for example, improved mental health and not only possible, but desirable. Denialists pollination). find fault with conservationists for failing Treat them nicely Be respectful when challenging opponents in whatever context. Provide to report positive news. However, this is evidence-based alternatives to fallacious arguments. a talking point that originates within the Make them partners Try to be inclusive in deliberating solutions, acknowledging trade-offs and conservation community itself, and as a seeking and emphasizing co-benefits where they exist. criticism it is now somewhat redundant. Conservationists have called on each other These are recommendations for communicating with a wider audience, who might be vulnerable to believing denier messages. In the case to not only report bad news accurately of those who have committed to deny or dismiss the extinction crisis, it is best to ignore or respectfully (yet firmly) debunk, recognizing that your target audience is those observing the conversation, rather than the deniers themselves. but also flag up good news stories as best we can15, for example, via https:// conservationoptimism.com, but without of implicatory denial that is contrary predictions of loss are questioned, it is useful sugar-coating the broader truth. to scientific consensus: recognizing the to highlight that empirical observations of Debate is vital as we search for importance of one set of threats does not extinction risk often outpace predictions14. solutions to the biodiversity crisis, but obviate the need to address others8. Another Confronting polemicists and rhetoricians these debates are only useful where there form of implicatory denial involves the well-versed in arguing positions rather than is good will on all sides. For conservation misrepresentation of the land sharing/ establishing truth can be a major challenge. to succeed, it will need to be inclusive, and sparing concept (Box 1). Whilst retaining a cordial dialogue, there is conservation scientists need to be better little point in being respectful of insincere at identifying useful discussions and Countering denial arguments, which should be called out for avoiding unnecessary internal conflicts. There are multiple ways in which what they are and dismantled and rebutted But in cases when constructive arguments conservation scientists can be proactive systematically with evidence3. turn into dismissiveness or denial, and in countering denial (Table 1). The first It is important not only to communicate when vested interests are prioritized over is to conduct rigorous science to refine the science of extinction, but also the search for truth, good will cannot be understanding of the scale, scope and to communicate the implications of assumed (Table 1). Unless denialists have a causes of the extinction crisis. However, biodiversity loss (Table 1). This can be large platform, the best response may be it is not enough just to get the science most effective when conservation scientists to ignore them to avoid amplifying their right, but also to communicate it to a wide find ways to demonstrate connections that efforts at misinformation. For this reason, audience, working with journalists, artists resonate with a target audience. Examples we have deliberately avoided referencing and other communicators to disseminate could include making connections between the names and publications of prominent the evidence before denialists are able to deforestation, wild animal trade and deniers here in the main text. Where contrive a consensus gap13. In combating the zoonoses; or between foods people consume responses are necessary, conservation pseudoscience peddled by denialists it has daily and their connection to conservation scientists need to avoid getting dragged been argued that the scientific consensus problems and solutions. Care needs to be down into ugly arguments or personal on climate change has been impacted by taken not to exaggerate the importance attacks, be measured and respectful in ‘seepage’, whereby scientists respond to of minor threats while overlooking major their responses, and reinforce their role critics by overemphasizing uncertainty, ones. For example, implicatory denial often as trusted experts by countering flawed allowing denialist claims to impact how they involves faux-concern about wind farms arguments with evidence. By adopting these portray their own research. Where modelled as a cause of biodiversity loss, despite the approaches, and learning some of the lessons

1442 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 4 | November 2020 | 1440–1443 | www.nature.com/natecolevol comment

of climate denial, conservation scientists can Brazil. 9Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 11. Betts, M. G. et al. Science 366, 1236–1239 (2019). ❐ 12. Hansen, M. C. et al. Science 342, 850–853 (2013). reclaim the narrative. Brazil. 13. Lewandowsky, S. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2013). ✉e-mail: [email protected] 14. Maclean, I. M. & Wilson, R. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, Alexander C. Lees 1,2 ✉ , Simon Attwood3,4, 12337–12342 (2011). 5,6,7 8,9 Published online: 18 August 2020 15. Balmford, A. & Knowlton, N. Science 356, 225 (2017). Jos Barlow and Ben Phalan 16. Fischhof, B. Risk Anal. 15, 137–145 (1995). 1 Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01285-z 17. Phalan, B. et al. Science 351, 450–451 (2016). Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. 2Cornell References Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca, Author contributions 1. Rosenau, J. Trends Microbiol. 20, 567–569 (2012). 3 NY, USA. WWF-Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Sutherland, W. J. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 10–16 (2011). A.C.L., S.A., J.B. and B.P. all contributed to the writing of 4Te Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 3. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 861 (2019). the manuscript. Maccarese, Italy. 5Setor de Ecologia, Universidade 4. Cohen, S. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Sufering (Polity Press, 2001). Competing interests Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Brazil. 6Lancaster 5. Butchart, S. H. et al. Biol. Conserv. 227, 9–18 (2018). The authors declare no competing interests. Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, 6. Lees, A. C. & Pimm, S. L. Curr. Biol. 25, R177–R180 (2015). UK. 7CIBIO, Research Centre in Biodiversity and 7. Barlow, J. et al. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018). 8. Díaz, S. et al. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019). Additional information Genetic Resources, University of Porto, Porto, 9. Mather, A. S. Area 24, 367–379 (1992). Supplementary information is available for this paper at Portugal. 8Parque das Aves, Foz do Iguaçu, Paraná, 10. Cuaresma, J. C. et al. Sci. Rep. 7, 40678 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01285-z.

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 4 | November 2020 | 1440–1443 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 1443