Season 3, Episode 8 – Game Changers: A conservation conversation with environmentalist Natalie Kyriacou

Elena Lambros:

Hello, and welcome to ESG Matters @ Ashurst. I'm Elena Lambros, an Ashurst Risk Advisory partner specialising in sustainability and climate change. You're listening to Season 3 of Game Changers. From innovators at the cutting edge of technology to impact investors funding a cleaner energy future, each and every one of our guests is changing the game in their field. In today's episode, you'll hear our conversation with Natalie Kyriacou, an award-winning environmentalist, presenter, and charity director on a mission to spark curiosity about the natural world. Natalie was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia and the Forbes 30 Under 30 honour for her services to wildlife and environmental conversation. She's also the proud author of Nature's Last Dance. Let's jump in and hear the discussion. Hi, Natalie. Welcome to the podcast.

Natalie Kyriacou:

Thank you for having me.

Elena Lambros:

So, I thought we would start with just giving a little bit of overview of yourself and how you came to write this book, a fabulous book, actually, called Nature's Last Dance.

Natalie Kyriacou:

Well, I've spent my career working to advocate for nature and communities. I'm an environmentalist and a charity director and now the author of a book called Nature's Last Dance: Tales of Wonder in an Age of Extinction. And I guess my life's mission is to help people fall in love with nature, because I think that when people fall in love with something, they move to protect it. And so, through my work, I focus on systems change. So I've worked across policy settings with corporate Australia, and internationally as well, I've worked with nonprofits and communities. And it's all to drive greater investment and momentum towards protecting nature. And so, my book is just one part of that. It aims to show the various ways that nature and humanity intersect, the ways that nature has shaped our culture, our legal systems, our political systems, how it has brought us joy and fed the world. And I tell this story of nature and humanity through a range of quirky, sometimes tragic, sometimes joyful stories. And the aim is really to help people fall in love with nature but also transcend some political and social divides and show people how everybody is actually a nature advocate. They just might not know it yet.

Elena Lambros:

No, I love that. And I do love your quirky stories, and I did love learning about quite a few animals that I had not thought about in some time. So, definitely, love that connection between humans and nature. One thing that I thought was quite interesting is, you do trace the kind of legal and community battles that have sat at the heart of conservation. So, my question would be, if you could design or redesign one rule of the game in our political systems to hardwire integrity and long-term impact for nature, what would it be?

Natalie Kyriacou:

There is quite a lot to choose from, but if I could redesign one rule, it would be to impose a legal duty of care to young people and nature on governments, corporations, and even public officials. So, similar to how directors have a duty of care perhaps to shareholders, this would require decision-makers to prevent harm to ecosystems where possible, to restore damage and to make choices ultimately that safeguard the long-term health and wellbeing of future generations in every major policy or investment. So, this could mean that governments could face legal consequences if they approve, say, a deforestation or some sort of habitat loss that threatens ecosystems or ecosystem services that are essential for young people's health and livelihoods.

Elena Lambros:

Thank you. And I would say that's quite a topical one for this year. We've seen quite a few cases that have really focused on that duty of care and thinking about that longer-term impact around nature in particular and the impact that might have on future generations. So I think that might be a shift that's coming anyway.

Natalie Kyriacou:

I hope so. I hope so. Anj Sharma, she's an incredible young woman, and she has been the driving force behind this, and then she received support from David Pocock. So, all power to her.

Elena Lambros:

Yeah, absolutely. It's definitely one that we are watching with interest to see what will happen with that. And then, shifting slightly, if you think about finance, and I think about finance because it's such an important way where if you see where capital is flowing, it can obviously help or hinder. And thinking about that in terms of nature and accelerating extraction or regeneration, what sort of emerging tools do you think, whether that's disclosure, stewardship, or new investment vehicles, what feels most promising to you right now and what guardrails keep them honest?

Natalie Kyriacou:

So, on the disclosure side, we've got the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures. We've even got the Science Based Targets Network. And they're promising because they're pushing, or they can, they have the potential to push investors and firms to really systematically assess and act on biodiversity and ecosystem impacts. What will keep them honest? Well, making them mandatory, ensuring that they're independently assured, linking reporting to action and investment to ensure that we're not just doing endless paperwork with no outcomes. But there are a range of instruments and tools. We have biodiversity credits, which are quite controversial. And I'm not sure, I'm certainly not completely on board with biodiversity offsets in their current form. We have debt-for-nature swaps. In Seychelles, part of the country's debt is cancelled in exchange for funding to protect the ocean. So, there's a range of measures that we have, and there's also really more structural innovations that we have. So, can we have perpetual purpose trusts like Patagonia, where, really, it sort of forces them to stick to their mission, and their mission is to protect the planet. We have cooperative models. So, there's a lot of innovations. But I would say, and this might be a little bit radical, I would say that these are instruments that operate within our current economic system. And our current system is built on a logic of endless extraction, production, and consumption. So, in this way, we have nature destruction and often communities destruction that is embedded into these systems that shape our world. So, our dominant economies, our institutions, our laws, our political systems, they are all operating within this logic. And this logic is one that we created. We made up this economic structure. So, while I think it's great that we need to be pushing forward these financial tools and instruments to drive better nature protection and better community outcomes, at the same time, we could be considering how we might reshape underlying systems, these economic structures and political systems and even cultural narratives that we've told ourselves are inevitable, but they might not be. And so, this could mean things like transitioning towards a wellbeing economy that measures success through ecological health and community wellbeing. This could mean looking at degrowth movements. And it's such a terrible name and it doesn't really articulate what it does, but essentially it means we put caps on resource extraction. We have limits on fishing or quotas on logging. This could mean we do things like remove harmful or perverse subsidies. So, for example, we have government subsidies that prop up industries that might not be profitable, like native forest logging. And so, we can look at some of these underlying systems and seek to change them as well. So, I think it requires a combined approach. And I'd be hesitant to say there's one single tool that is going to answer everything. It's more everything all at once while making sure that we have our eye on these underlying systems.

Elena Lambros:

Thank you. And I think that's right, because for people to shift their narrative or shift the way that they think, some of those innovative structures that you're starting to see, like the Seychelles example, focusing on the ocean, I think that is really good and people can start to see that. But obviously, there's a whole range of other things that we haven't really considered in a lot of depth now that could be part of that conversation. And so, I think that is definitely a way to start to shift our thinking.

Natalie Kyriacou: I hope so.

Elena Lambros:

And then, one topic that I think gets quite a lot of focus is around your supply chain. So, we obviously see in supply chain, we see due diligence laws, they're starting to encompass whether it's deforestation or habitat conversion and some kind of broader environmental harm initiatives. Do you think there's any kind of practical steps that if you think from a legal or risk profession, you might need to implement to strengthen the defensibility of how you're aligning with those laws or how you're thinking about the whole system?

Natalie Kyriacou:

It's a really big undertaking, especially for big multinational corporations, and for smaller startups, it is really difficult as well. I think first and foremost, making an effort to know your supply chain. The intent is to map out your suppliers and know where your materials are coming from and to know broadly where your high-risk regions are. Is it in palm oil? Or is it in soy? Or is it in timber? Are there areas that need extra attention? Are there areas that we know have higher incidents of modern slavery? Or are we operating in an area that is a biodiversity hotspot? So, I think knowing your supply chain and prioritising the highest-impact areas. Also, being able to check the facts, having satellite images, having certifications, making sure that when you're auditing and verifying suppliers, it's done through external auditors. Working with suppliers is really important as well. We don't want to be crippling suppliers. We don't want to be cutting off suppliers that we perceive as doing the wrong thing, but rather setting clear rules for suppliers on how they can meet our environmental standards and how we can support them to meet those standards. And importantly, keeping records, being able to trace the supply chain, trace the materials and report actions. Companies need to be able to show exactly what they've done to both minimise harm, to have external independent audits and to, I guess, how they have addressed potential grievances or issues in their supply chain. Ultimately, you want to get to a point where you can fix problems fast. There will be problems, of course, there will. There is problems in every supply chain. But if a supplier breaks the rules or if a company breaks the rules, how are you acting? What are you doing? What measures do you have in place to either end that contract or fix the problem? But I would say most importantly at the moment is knowing your supply chain as best as you can and also having training tools and incentives for your suppliers. So, collaborate rather than punish them.

Elena Lambros:

Yeah. I think that's a really key one for me, is the fact that you do need to work with your suppliers. So to do all of this verification and understand your supply chain is not there just to end the relationship with the supplier, it's to make sure that everyone can work together. So, I really love that collaborative approach. I think that's probably a key one that people can take away and think through. Which leads me probably on to one of the topical words that I don't like to always mention, but everyone talks about it. So, greenwashing. And greenwashing claims are everywhere. And my question would be, do you think that proliferation of accusations is actually restoring integrity? Or do you think it's kind of eroding public confidence in a way that risks slowing down progress?

Natalie Kyriacou:

Yeah. Well, I think there is certainly a lack of trust. I don't think it's due to accusations. I think the lack of trust is due to the greenwashing. But at the same time, we need to make sure that we're not holding companies to unrealistic standards. We need to give companies time, an opportunity to own their mistakes, to outline a path for how they are fixing them. So, for example, Patagonia recently released its sustainability report, and they're completely imperfect. There is harm caused by Patagonia, but the difference is that they own that. They actually outline all of the ways that they aren't doing good and what their ambition is. They're really transparent about that. So I do think that trust can be gained through radical transparency, owning your mistakes, owning the problems, and showing your shareholders and showing your communities that you understand the problem, you understand how you were contributing to the problem, and outlining the actions that you are undertaking to improve them. And I think we're seeing a few things at the moment. We're seeing the rise of greenwashing allegations created an environment where corporations pulled back a little bit and thought, "Well, it doesn't really matter what we do. We're going to come under attack." It saw companies perhaps being quieter about what they're doing. So, rather than disclosing... Some of them were doing great work to protect the environment, but they just didn't want to even mention it anymore. They kept it behind the scenes for fear of backlash. I think that is really difficult for companies to navigate. But at the same time, I don't think the answer is to be quieter. I think it is to be more transparent and build trust. Transparency is the key ingredient to building trust with your customers.

Elena Lambros:

Yeah, no, I would agree. I think that transparency point is something that everyone should be really thinking through and taking to heart, because without it, it is really hard to build trust and being open around how difficult this is, because it is quite difficult for the regions we mentioned before around our current system and the way we approach things. So, it is quite a difficult place to be. Now, if I could look ahead a little bit, there were so many stories in your book. I wasn't sure how to really capture it all in one very short podcast. But if you could talk through maybe one hopeful story, maybe one practical step, and one policy change, and if you could tuck them all together, could shift towards a future where nature and people thrive.

Natalie Kyriacou:

I'll throw out a couple. One example would be the Norwegian wealth fund, which is a great real-world example of a financial tool that's aligned to long-term social and environmental goals. So, essentially, Norway, they tax their fossil fuel industries, and then they use that money to give their kids free university education. So, since the '90s, Norway has imposed, I think it's 56% special tax for oil and gas companies. And then they have a 22 or 23% corporate tax rate. And those proceeds from the tax are then reinvested into this sovereign wealth fund, which is the largest in the world now. And they can distribute that to meet community needs. So, that's one model. Another is rights of nature. And I speak about this in my book. The rights of nature movement is really interesting. Essentially, it is granting legal rights to nature. In some cases, it has been to things like rivers or whales, but it was Ecuador that made history because they became the first country in the world, and this was in 2008, that enshrined the rights of nature into its constitution. And so, it essentially means that Ecuador effectively granted to every citizen the right to speak on behalf of nature and, importantly, take action on behalf of nature. And so, there was a mining licence, for example, that was revoked in Ecuador because citizens took legal action on behalf of nature. And what's really great about the rights of nature movement is that it is led by communities, particularly indigenous communities. So, the aim is to both protect nature and community and understands that harmed nature is harm to communities. And then, I mean, another example is that, I mean, we should be, in our political systems, having political donations disclosed, limits on corporate lobbying, putting a stop to deceptive political advertising. All of these things work together. And at the moment, we have these systems that promote, I guess, a real lack of transparency and often overlook communities and nature. One of my favourite stories, which I outline in my book, is the story of Costa Rica, how Costa Rica in 1948 was coming off the back of a really bloody civil war. And the leader who emerged from that civil war, José Figueres, he stood in front of his country and he had a sledgehammer in his hand and he turned around and he put a sledgehammer through the military headquarters. And he said, "From this day forth, our military has been abolished and we are now a country of nature, peace, and education." And then he went on to redirect funds from military spending into nature, peace, and education. Costa Rica at that time had really low literacy rates. After this decision and this investment, Costa Rica then became the country in Latin America with the highest literacy rates. They went from having one of the largest rates of deforestation in the world to the lowest rates. They became 99% based off renewables. They started transitioning their extractive industries to models that regenerated nature. And now Costa Rica, as we know it, that's a country that people go to for nature tourism. It's imperfect. All of the individual examples are imperfect. And other countries have tried to abolish their militaries and had disastrous results. So it can't apply to everybody, but it's an example of how bold leadership and community engagement can in fact transform a country if you apply a systems thinking lens and if you put community and nature at the centre of your decisions.

Elena Lambros:

It is a very powerful example from that symbolic moment back in 1948 to what has happened in this period. It's kind of amazing what can be done. And I do particularly love the Ecuador example around having that enshrined in your constitution, because I think that just really highlights the conversation and it leads to a different way of thinking and different outcomes. So, it's all really important and always really great to see different examples from across the world.

Natalie Kyriacou:

Absolutely. And I think it leads to cultural shift as well. You go to Costa Rica, they are a people of peace and nature. It is embedded in their cultural psyche. And I think that, obviously, these moves, whether it's the rights of nature or whether it's transitioning your economy from extraction to regeneration, it takes time. Often you're not going to see immediate results, but it is sort of slowly transforming your cultural psyche, your identity, your political systems, your economic systems, and thinking about things in a new way, challenging... We often have these systems that we just think are inevitable and we think, "Oh, no, we can't change that. That's too radical," or "I can't imagine." But I think we need to be more imaginative and think outside the box a little bit.

Elena Lambros:

I love the thinking in your book, and I've loved this conversation. So, thank you again so much for coming on. It's been lovely to have you.

Natalie Kyriacou:

Thank you for having me.

Elena Lambros:

Thank you for listening to this episode of ESG Matters @ Ashurst. I hope you found this episode insightful. Natalie's new book titled Nature's Last Dance: Tales of Wonder in an Age of Extinction, published by Simon & Schuster, is out now. To subscribe to future episodes of Game Changers and to hear previous episodes, click on the link in the show notes or search ESG Matters @ Ashurst on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. And while you're there, please feel free to leave a rating or a review. And finally, to learn more about all Ashurst podcasts, visit ashurst.com/podcasts. In the meantime, thanks again for listening, and goodbye for now.