Interview with Prof. Esther Turnhout on key insights IPBES 11
On December 15th, Prof. Esther Turnhout, a BIOTraCes partner from the University of Twente, was interviewed on the Dutch radio show Vroege Vogels during the 11th IPBES conference. In the interview, Turnhout shares insights into the Transformative Change assessment, a report she co-authored as a lead contributor. Accepted by the conference’s Plenary, the report offers key recommendations for policymakers aimed at addressing systemic issues to combat biodiversity loss and safeguard nature.
Below, you’ll find the English transcription of the original Dutch interview.
Listen to the original interview (in Dutch) here: Link to audio
Interviewer: Scientists from all over the world are currently gathering in Windhoek, Namibia, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) summit. It’s not very well known, the IPBES, but it’s very important. Esther Turnhout, professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Twente, is representing the Netherlands at the IPBES conference and is now on the phone with us. Good morning, Esther.
Esther: Good morning!
Interviewer: Hello! What is the goal of this summit? No treaty is coming out of this, right?
Esther: No, it’s about scientific reports. I have contributed to one of these reports and it’s about what transformations are needed to protect nature and biodiversity.
Interviewer: So, there are reports being released, based on which policymakers can guide governments?
Esther: Yes, that is indeed the hope. Especially with this Transformative Change report, it’s very important. What we are increasingly recognizing, both as a scientific community and as policymakers, is that current nature policy is not effective and also not just.
Interviewer: You’re working on a radically different way of nature conservation. What do you have in mind?
Esther: The idea we are seeing more and more is that what we are currently doing is mainly treating the symptoms, and what we actually need changing the system. So, nature conservation is very important, but if you don’t stop the destruction of nature, it’s like mopping the floor while keeping the tap open. What is needed are measures that address the deeper causes of nature loss. And that’s what this report is about.
Interviewer: So, you mean that currently, in the Netherlands, for example, we’re trying to address drought, plant more trees, make rivers meander, or remove dams—those kinds of things. But you’re saying we need a complete system change. What does that mean?
Esther: Well, some countries, like the Netherlands, have a very large ecological footprint through their economic systems. Other countries sometimes suffer from the nature loss these countries cause, and they sometimes also suffer from nature conservation measures, yet they bear little responsibility. So, what is really needed is for us, in the wealthy West, to address our economic systems, political systems, and the way we treat the Earth.
Interviewer: And that also touches on justice. It’s unjust that many countries, which contribute very little to climate change, are experiencing huge consequences, like rising sea levels, for example.
Esther: Yes, certainly. Absolutely. So, it’s high time that we do something about this, because otherwise, nature conservation really won’t work.
Interviewer: Yes. So, it’s more than just putting money in a fund to help those countries with higher dikes and similar measures. You’re talking about a “system change”. What exactly needs to change in our economic system?
Esther: Well, the analyses in the report show several causes of nature loss. They also show several obstacles to why it’s so difficult, and they provide policy options. What those options are, I can’t say too much about yet, because the report is still being negotiated. But one of the examples, which is nothing new and has been on the agenda for a long time, is the redirecting or abolition of harmful subsidies. We spend an enormous amount of money subsidizing the destruction of nature. And that’s one of the things that should really be central.
Interviewer: Yes, we heard a lot last year about subsidies for fossil fuels. That’s what you mean?
Esther: Exactly. The figures in the report show that we spend about four times as much globally on subsidizing the destruction of the planet as we would need to close what is called the “conservation funding gap.” So, these are enormous amounts—trillions.
“What we are currently doing in nature conservation is mainly treating the symptoms, and what we actually need is changing the system”
Interviewer: So, you mean that currently, in the Netherlands, for example, we’re trying to address drought, plant more trees, make rivers meander, or remove dams—those kinds of things. But you’re saying we need a complete system change. What does that mean?
Esther: Well, some countries, like the Netherlands, have a very large ecological footprint through their economic systems. Other countries sometimes suffer from the nature loss these countries cause, and they sometimes also suffer from nature conservation measures, yet they bear little responsibility. So, what is really needed is for us, in the wealthy West, to address our economic systems, political systems, and the way we treat the Earth.
Interviewer: And that also touches on justice. It’s unjust that many countries, which contribute very little to climate change, are experiencing huge consequences, like rising sea levels, for example.
Esther: Yes, certainly. Absolutely. So, it’s high time that we do something about this, because otherwise, nature conservation really won’t work.
Interviewer: Yes. So, it’s more than just putting money in a fund to help those countries with higher dikes and similar measures. You’re talking about a “system change”. What exactly needs to change in our economic system?
Esther: Well, the analyses in the report show several causes of nature loss. They also show several obstacles to why it’s so difficult, and they provide policy options. What those options are, I can’t say too much about yet, because the report is still being negotiated. But one of the examples, which is nothing new and has been on the agenda for a long time, is the redirecting or abolition of harmful subsidies. We spend an enormous amount of money subsidizing the destruction of nature. And that’s one of the things that should really be central.
Interviewer: Yes, we heard a lot last year about subsidies for fossil fuels. That’s what you mean?
Esther: Exactly. The figures in the report show that we spend about four times as much globally on subsidizing the destruction of the planet as we would need to close what is called the “conservation funding gap.” So, these are enormous amounts—trillions.
"We should redirect or abolish harmful subsidies. We spend an enormous amount of money subsidizing the destruction of nature."
Interviewer: As scientists, you describe exactly what’s going on. Is it unusual for you to now speak out about what should be done? Aren’t you stepping into the role of policymakers?
Esther: Well, it’s a scientific analysis. What comes out of it is not binding, but science is very clear on this. These are not very surprising conclusions that we’re presenting. They come directly from scientific literature. So, in that sense, it’s not controversial at all. What’s new for many policymakers, and I’ve noticed also for scientists, is that the report focuses on the underlying causes. How vested interests benefit from the destruction of nature, and how change is being resisted, even though there are many other important societal values—like health, livable climates, and clean drinking water—that suffer as a result. So, it’s about time we bring this message.
Interviewer: Yes, very important, but not everyone knows about the IPBES. So, how is your work received by politics? How is this kind of alarming report used?
Esther: Well, it’s an interesting process, because we, as scientists, wrote the report, and now it’s being negotiated by countries. These countries actually asked for this report. They requested the scientific community to provide a report on transformations, and now they can negotiate the summary. What they’re doing is mainly clarifying and ensuring that the relevance of that knowledge aligns with what can be done in policy.
Interviewer: So they’re not trying to wriggle out of it?
Esther: I don’t get that impression, no. These negotiators are very involved. They want the summary to fit well and be easily explained in terms of what policies they can enact. So, that’s the mechanism through which we hope to see policy impact.
Interviewer: Yes, thank you, Esther Turnhout, University of Twente. Thank you for explaining the important work you’re doing at the IPBES summit in Windhoek, Namibia.