Kirsty Schneeberger, CEO, Synchronicity Earth. Photo: James Wicks
How did you first start working on environmental issues?
I’ve always been interested in the environment and in protecting the natural world. After my first degree and a period working in Westminster, I started to get involved in environmental law. I worked for the legal unit at WWF, where I learnt more about how to use the law and policy to protect the natural world. I realised that I didn’t want to follow the ‘normal’ legal profession route and that I could put my skills to good use in the NGO and charity sector.
I’ve done a couple of stints working with the UN on their environmental conferences. For example, in 2012 I worked on the Rio+20 conference that set the pathway for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. I also worked for the UN Paris process and the Paris Agreement, which was a real climate breakthrough. I’ve always been interested in what can be achieved in roles relating to international institutions, and trying to use my skills to have the the most positive impact I can.
Prior to joining Synchronicity Earth, I was working at ClientEarth, using strategic litigation to really focus on the enforcement around environmental issues to try to stop bad environmental practice.
What attracted you to the role at Synchronicity Earth?
Well, I was immediately attracted to Synchronicity Earth’s focus on underfunded, neglected and overlooked species. Having worked in this area all my professional life, I understand that there are multiple conservation issues that need attention, but also that attention and resources are not always evenly distributed. There are conservation projects that get most of the limelight – the more attractive they are, the more attention and funding they get – so I think what Synchronicity Earth is doing to focus on some of the more overlooked and underfunded species, regions and ecosystems is crucial. Collectively, what is needed is a whole systems approach, and if you’re only fixing certain parts of the system, you’re not really going to have that big an impact. Synchronicity Earth helps to plug those gaps and so support the holistic systems-approach that is needed to really make headway.
Also, I was very keen to move back to a more biodiversity, nature-focused role. I’ve been working on climate a lot recently, but 2020 is a critical year and will set the tone for a decade of ambition and action, shining a light on the biodiversity crisis. I believe Synchronicity Earth understands that the loss of species and degradation and destruction of ecosystems happening globally is something that demands as much of our attention as the climate crisis and that they really are two sides of the same coin. The more we see destruction of habitats and ecosystems, the worse climate change gets. But the reverse is also true: where we can regenerate and restore habitats and enhance carbon sinks, then we are strengthening our ability to tackle climate change and so I see action on both of these global issues going hand in hand.
Why do you think the climate crisis has generally received so much more media attention than the biodiversity crisis?
It’s interesting, because if you think about how the environmental movement developed, whether through seminal texts like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which focused on humanity’s impact on nature, or the first ever UN conference on environmental issues in Stockholm in 1972, for example, you see that before the climate change discussion became mainstream, we already had global awareness and significant leadership being shown on the need to protect the environment and focus on species protection. Climate didn’t come to the fore until a bit later. In fact, it’s around thirty years since Margaret Thatcher gave her speech to the UN, in 1989, on global warming and talked about what global leaders needed to do.
That was when global warming and climate change really started to hit the headlines. Both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity were born out of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, so there was originally this twin track process focusing on both climate and biodiversity.
So why has the climate crisis come to dominate the narrative? Perhaps one major difference is that nature conservation can be very site specific: biodiversity protection or habitat restoration, for example, often happens at a very local level, focusing on one species or a particular type of habitat. As a consequence, conservation activities can be very species or location-specific, so as a result it can be difficult for people to join the dots, to relate that work to the bigger picture. I think this is one of the things Synchronicity Earth does particularly well, it joins the dots, so it’s not just one species or region we are concerned with, we’re actually trying to look at the whole thing.
Climate on the other hand is a bit more top down. The way that we’ve approached climate is different, precisely because it is so obviously transboundary and transnational, because the global atmosphere is by definition global in a way that a particular species that has a very small geographic range is not.
The approach that the climate world has taken has very much been through the UN, global treaties, seeking global consensus (if not always achieving it). Something like the Paris Agreement gets a lot of press because you have just under 200 nation states, signing up to it. The great challenge – but also the great opportunity – with biodiversity, being a bit more bottom up, is how you bring those two things together. The Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 being held next year in China is so important because it is an opportunity to focus on a global, structural, systemic approach to solving what are often seen as very grassroots, local issues. On the flipside, the climate world also needs to learn from the biodiversity world because now the focus needs to shift to implementation at the country level. The challenge is now to take the Paris goals and see what every country needs to do to implement nationally-determined contributions and what specific contributions they need to make in towns and cities, in energy systems and transport systems. I think these processes have to learn from one another and become a little bit the opposite of what they have been: how can there be more of a systemic, top-down structural approach to conserving Earth’s biodiversity and, conversely, how can we start thinking about climate in a more local, bottom-up kind of way?
Do you think conservation can sometimes be seen as a bit of a luxury, nature as something that doesn’t really have much relevance to our everyday lives?
I think the relevance point is interesting. I think many people feel disconnected from the natural world, partly as more and more people are living in urban centres, and therefore lack the physical connection to the land and to nature. People may struggle to understand the relevance of nature to their lives or find it hard to relate to a particular issue: How do we understand an issue that affects a species that is different to us? How do we engage in a topic that we might not be able to understand because it doesn’t look human and it’s extremely complex?
People are drawn to human stories. Here, schoolchildren learn about frogs thanks to our partner at Tesoro Escondido Reserve, Ecuador.
It’s clear that people are drawn to human stories, to the stories that we feel we can relate to, about what it means to be human, about what it means to not just exist and survive but also to thrive and to flourish. But I think also in the same way that when we talk about climate change, the iconic symbol of climate change had been the polar bear for so long but actually what probably resonated more was talking about climate change in terms of the impact it had on people, and I think that narrative is, whether we like it or not, something that tends to cut through. How