Are we capable of balancing human development and the conservation of nature? The rate of environmental decline suggests ‘no’, development will continue… and nature will suffer.
But leading marine ecologist David Obura remains optimistic, integrating sustainability with development at scales from local to global. At the local level, he is protecting coral reefs by working with local communities whose lives are entwined with the sea, through his organization Coastal Oceans Research and Development—Indian Ocean (CORDIO) East Africa. He sees his work with coral reefs as “a microcosm of the global issues we deal with in the Planetary Boundaries framework”, and is in close collaboration with Tyler Prize winner Johan Rockström as a member of The Earth Commission.
In this conversation, Dr. Obura shares the value of the Planetary Boundaries framework in his research and why he thinks Johan Rockström is so effective at communicating this message. He discusses the importance of environmental justice and equity in the idea of Planetary Boundaries, as well as the need for natural spaces, and offers a response to those who worry that limits to growth will require too much sacrifice.
Could you tell us about your organization and the work you do?
My organization, CORDIO East Africa, is a nonprofit research organization from Kenya working on coral reefs in East Africa. We look at the threats from global warming on coral reefs and bleaching, but we also look at small-scale fishers, how they deal with the challenges around them, and how we can best build their capacity and integrate them into decision-making processes for sustainability. So it’s really a microcosm of the issues we deal with in the Planetary Boundaries framework.
Of course, the issues for coral reefs are the same all around the equator, and this is one of those systems that is really showing the exigence of Planetary Boundaries that we’re facing now. We undertake a research-to-action type model; our research is ongoing, and we hope to convince the world to reduce carbon emissions so we can save the coral reefs, and we can then work with the communities to conserve them locally.
You’re collaborating with Johan Rockström – what are you working on?
I’m working with Johan and others on a part of the Planetary Boundaries framework that we’re calling “Earth System Boundaries,” that looks at the health of nature. There are two boundaries: one is intact nature in large spaces, and the other, the one I’m really interested in, is about functional integrity and the health of nature in farmed spaces and other altered landscapes and seascapes. It ensures that, in every square kilometer, there is sufficient nature to provide benefits to people.
With pollination and other ecosystem services and benefits, nature has to be present locally for you to benefit from it. The insects don’t fly very far when it comes to pollination and so on. Having this set amount of healthy nature in every square kilometer provides benefits globally as well.
So how do you incentivize and empower people to look after nature in their space? Can every community, in their village areas or in the sea, every landowner farming a crop, can they all take 25% of that area out of production to turn back into nature? You need the governance and the funding costs to do that. There are benefits from that nature, and I’m hoping we can communicate that a lot of this over-extraction of wealth that has degraded nature historically in the past has gone into these financial assets.
We need to get money coming in to support these natural spaces in local areas. This is part of rebuilding Spaceship Earth to make it a healthier system. How can we connect funding from all sorts of different sources, in a way that protects that nature and the ownership of that nature in the local space, so it belongs to the people who live there?
If we can plan it out globally and connect the dots, so that we protect nature that is still intact – where people are hungry and otherwise might cut down the vegetation and farm there – but we also rebuild nature, take land out of production of maize or other cash crops and put it back into natural systems. Then they have all the benefits from water retention, from pollination, from pest and disease control and all of the local benefits you get from natural systems where you live.
We’re hoping that the Planetary Boundaries framework can help negotiate the space and get decision makers at global levels to realize that this is important, at national levels to make it a national priority and put in place the policies that will enable it, and then in local spaces so that people will do that because they benefit from it. It becomes a way to really make tangible the idea of each person’s or each place’s contribution to the planetary system.
Do you think the global community is doing enough to come back within the Planetary Boundaries?
The challenge about decisions that countries have to take goes back to this fear about Limits To Growth, the iconic book that was published in the seventies. The fear is, if we’ve crossed Planetary Boundaries, everybody has to stop what they’re doing and limit their growth.
The key thing about Planetary Boundaries is that it talks about both the overall drivers of environmental decline, but also each person’s contribution – and those are very different. I think we need to realize that in those countries in Africa, there’s a lot of resistance to the concepts of Planetary Boundaries, but realizing that it actually gives African countries the justification to grow further – because they have the need, with a lot of people living in poverty. High income countries, with high environmental footprints, have to reduce their consumption in order to come back within the Boundaries and give space for the development of others.
Can you explain the Planetary Boundaries framework as simply as possible?
The Planetary Boundaries is a scientific framework which helps us understand the health of the planet as a whole. It gives us a bird’s eye view of our “Spaceship Earth,” looking at it as a finite entity. It identifies some key variables or indicators that tell us about the health of the system. If we go too far outside of the boundary of any of those indicators, it’s a warning sign and we need to pay attention to that and come back within those boundaries.
Can you tell us a bit about the state of Earth systems science prior to the development of the Planetary Boundaries?
All sciences evolve over time. Prior to the Planetary Boundaries concept, Earth system sciences were working in more siloed packages, so the physicists in their domains, chemists in theirs, and geologists and biologists and separate domains. The Planetary Boundaries emerged bringing these all together, but also excitingly bringing in ecology, the impact of human activity and how it adds up on a global scale.
What was the science of the eighties and nineties telling us about the state of the planet?
Fifty years ago, scientists knew that the signals were dire for the future of the planet. The problem was that with less integration of Earth sciences and not knowing as much as we do now, they didn’t add it up as well as we could now. It’s not a criticism; it really takes time for this to happen and for leading scientists to be able to do that. Science of the 70s was also stuck looking at the “average person”: the idea of per capita impact, as if everybody is equal in the countries or across the planet. That’s an absurd idea: people have very different levels of impact.
Why was the research into and the Planetary Boundaries needed?
Before the Planetary Boundaries science, we might’ve been looking at total population or growth in GDP or fossil fuel use and see that they’re becoming a problem, but the data didn’t tell you about the state of the planet. The research into the Planetary Boundaries was needed to bring together siloed sciences and approaches. The framework allowed us to look at the Earth system as a whole and how all of the actions aggregate up to the planetary scale.
How would you describe Johan Rockstrom’s ability to communicate his science and how important do you think communication is for scientists like yourself?
Communicating science is critical to get an impact from our work. Many scientists don’t train as communicators, and we’re not necessarily very good at it! The key thing is understanding that complex concepts can be broken down into pieces and that, by linking those pieces together, you can make them understandable to a wide range of people, including to other scientists. Johan has a unique ability to do that.
Is there anything special or unique about the Planetary Boundaries research?
The Planetary Boundaries framework brought together 29 leading scientists, and the fact that it iterates is very powerful and unique. It’s been able to extend from the main physical sciences, so physics and geology and geochemistry and sort of big picture biology – now we’re integrating ecology into it, as well as people’s interactions with nature, farming and forestry and things like that. The latest iteration includes justice and what’s just for all people on the planet which is just the perfect illustration of its power and its relevance to our situation today.
Johan has shared with us that he doesn’t have a car and finds it hard to board planes because of the environmental cost of travel. As you know him on a personal level, is this in line with your impression of him?
Yes, I fully see the struggle that he has to board planes and travel to go to all these places. But that’s the thing about communication, but also about complex science, is that you don’t advance if you don’t appear. You have to show up and you have to build relationships with people to deal with tough questions and tough issues. So one of the challenges the Planetary Boundaries team has dealt with is that if we didn’t know one another from in-person meetings, we wouldn’t be able to do it remotely. And then if we don’t travel, we just give the ground to those who don’t care about the travel, and we have to show up to really show the importance of our messages and the actions that need to be taken.
Also, it’s not just about the individual travel of every person, but it’s actually pushing for the system to change so that the options for travel are much more sustainable. And unless we really meet to put out the science and communicate about it, we won’t be able to push the systems, the flights, and the economic systems to change to give us much more sustainable options.
What action would you like to see being taken by our leaders in response to the updated Planetary Boundaries research of 2024?
I would like to see our leaders respond to the new Planetary Boundaries updates by really incorporating them into decision-making and not being afraid to do that, because we need to stay within the boundaries; we need to come back within the boundaries for many of those variables. And I think countries are afraid that it means they’ll have to give up options to do that, but actually it means we have a much better world if we do. So it’ll be tough, but we can do it and the results will be better for everybody.
Does the Planet Boundaries research translate into individual actions? If so, what actions would you like to see individuals take?
For me, as a coral reef scientist working in local spaces, which are actually very similar around the whole world in coral reef regions, I love the Planetary Boundaries work. The part that I’ve been involved in is understanding how each person benefits from the nature in the space in which they live, and the planetary boundary, of course, is that there’s enough nature in every space around the planet to support people. As soon as we got into this work, I realized that this framework has the power to express that, so that’s the part that I’ve been building up and trying to communicate at global levels, but then down to local levels as well, in local governments and with communities and landowners to see how can you do your part to make sure that the part of the planet that you have control of has enough nature in it.
Johan’s work maintains a strong focus on the importance of nature. Why is this important and do you think this differentiates his work from others in the field?
Nature is fundamental to global society; we depend on it in every way. They say that half the global economy is dependent on nature, but of course the other half wouldn’t be there if the first half wasn’t there. So it’s really everything we do, and that’s the sustainable development paradigm: that nature underpins economy and society. I think the Planetary Boundaries framework gives a chance for global decision makers to understand the framing that enables local places to conserve and rebuild nature to the right levels.
Much of Johan’s work relates not only to environmental change, but to social equity. To what extent do you see Johan’s work as being sensitive to issues of climate justice?
Justice is a foundational part of staying within Planetary Boundaries. So not only must we as a whole stay within the boundary, we have to make sure that every person has enough. In order to allow that, you have to really reduce the gross impacts of the top impactors. That’s the concept of climate justice, that everybody has access to their fair part of the climate space. There’s a biodiversity justice compliment to that, and you can express the same for water, for food and for everything else as well. The Planetary Boundaries framework enables us to encapsulate that all together.
Do you think there’s something about Johan’s character that has enabled him to connect with such a broad range of individuals on this issue, ranging from film star Leonardo DiCaprio to naturalist David Attenborough to climate activist Greta Thunburg to business magnate Richard Branson?
I think one thing that has enabled him to connect with so many people beyond the science is that he’s convinced that it’s the right framework and it’s of value to everybody, and that belief really carries forward. He also responds and communicates to each of these different people and groups of people to help them understand and then to leverage their power in communicating the framework as well. If it were just Johan or other scientists communicating, we wouldn’t get very far. We need to have champions in all these different domains, different ages, different cultures, really expressing the need for this framework to be acted upon.
How did you come to know Johan?
I read about Johan’s work and wanted to work with him and to see how my work could fit with his. We had a mutual colleague, a friend through a Swiss filmmaker who gave a bit of an introduction at one point after doing a coral reef film with me. But then it was really through the Earth Commission that I met Johan, when I came onto that and worked with him.
We were at a workshop hosted by Richard Branson in the British Virgin Islands, and they both love biking, so we went biking up this thousand-meter island, which was exhausting to everybody else, but they really loved it. I was dead at the end!
Your area of expertise is marine conservation and sustainability; what are your thoughts about the state of the ocean right now? We’ve just returned from the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi; do you have any thoughts about the fisheries subsidies agreements?
The state of the ocean is dire. I work on coral reefs, and of course they’re a flagship system at the front edge of all of the impacts you can imagine, whether it’s climate change or fisheries and coastal development. We’ve used up so much of the land, everybody’s looking to the ocean for more wealth. So we really need to bring it under control. It’s essential for the World Trade Organization and others to really reign in extractive practices. Subsidies incentivize what’s valuable to the current financial system. In this case, we’re still incentivizing just taking things out and we need to change the subsidies so that they incentivize protecting the system and restoring it.
One of the Planetary Boundaries is ocean acidification. Can you tell us what that means and why it’s important?
Ocean acidification is the dissolving of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean, which makes the ocean increasingly acidic, very slowly but significantly. All life on earth evolved in the sea, and was used to a certain environment of the alkaline/acid balance of the ocean. When we change that balance, we change the fundamentals of how our cells work and how all species work. As the ocean acidifies, corals, mollusks, and some plankton won’t be able to build skeletons as well. We can predict how food chains may change a little bit as a result, but we really can’t predict what the overall food web of the ocean will be, or how all these cascading changes will affect each other. We’re really in the dark trying to understand the full implications of ocean acidification.
Why do you think it’s proving so difficult to respond to the challenges we are facing? What’s your view on the sort of success of our multilateral approaches to meet environmental challenges of our time?
Many of the people in charge of intergovernmental decision making grew up 50 to 80 years ago, and were studying or professionals maybe 30 to 40 years ago, when it was a very different world. There are a lot of vested interests, people who benefit from the current situation, who don’t want to change what they’re doing. It is very difficult to really understand the scale of what we have to do and how interlinked it all has to be. The Planetary Boundaries framework helps identify the broader parameters of what has to happen, but it takes a lot more than that, a lot of real commitment from different sectors, decision makers, and companies to really change to the extent that’s needed.
What new or unique problem did the Planetary Boundaries research seek to address?
The problem that the Planetary Boundaries framework tried to address was to create a picture of the planet as a whole. We had many sciences dealing with different parts and many groups working on specific places. But we’re trying to understand the whole: how the planetary system works, this idea of Spaceship Earth moving through space, and how it functions and what our impact on it is. The Planetary Boundaries framework gives us a complete picture of the planet’s health. It is not just a tool for scientists, it’s a tool for everybody else as well.
Could you speak more to the assumption from some leaders that to stay within Planetary Boundaries, we’re going to have to give things up?
A challenge for decision makers and the public in thinking about the Planetary Boundaries framework is that there are limits to growth, and everybody is afraid that they have to give something up. But the thing is, the world we produce will be a better place for that. The things we have to give up are really around overconsumption. There are many people who are overconsuming, they’re buying too many clothes, buying too many appliances, and throwing things away, and there’s the planned obsolescence of products. We don’t need all this stuff and can live very high-quality lives without it. It’s the market system we have that trains us that we need this, so we buy it. A lot of people do need to give those things up, but in giving that up, we’ll have a much better environmental quality, and we also create space for those who have too little to also develop further, so they have minimum requirements for good quality of life in terms of clean water and health and education and so on. It certainly means a balancing across people across the planet, but it will be a better place and the things we have to give up are not that valuable in the bigger picture anyway.
Why do you think it’s so hard to create change? What should we do to make systems that work better for the environment?
Because it is so hard for systems to change, to address the challenges we have, we need to realize that there are actually multiple value systems on the planet. We have bought into a single market capitalist value system that’s driving the global economy. There are many cultures that don’t think that way, but they have been marginalized. And just by opening up to multiple values and allowing more variety of value systems to come through, while realizing that we must come back within limits and boundaries, will help accelerate the change. And that means more diverse representation in decision making from these other cultures. More younger people of course, rather than older people; more women as well, rather than just men. All of this diversification will help to make better decisions.
Could you summarize the concept of limits to growth and what it means to us today?
The limits to growth philosophy, or movement, in the seventies really pointed out that you can’t grow forever. We have this growth mentality in economies that the population of countries always needs to grow, but we are on a finite planet, this Spaceship Earth. I think what we realize now is that not everybody is equal. Pushing the boundaries is not just about the number of people; it’s about the behaviors of those people, and not everybody is the same. So, we really need to reduce the impacts of those that make the most impact while also addressing the needs of those who have the least. If we do that right, the technologies, science, and decision-making power are there to make it work, but it means quite tough decisions for many people, and different types of decisions for different types of people as well.
What’s your opinion of the Planetary Boundaries research and its relevance for scientists like yourself?
I love the Planetary Boundaries framework. I’ve come to it now; I’m working on it with Johan and others in the Earth Commission. And as soon as I heard it, I thought, “Ah, there’s an answer. There’s a way to look at what I was understanding about coral reefs, what I could see locally in coral reefs and the global picture at the same time”.
So, the Planetary Boundaries are really a way to integrate all of these different scales together, all of the different challenges that we face, and come up with very clear answers about what to do.
Why do you think Johan Rockström deserves to win the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement?
I think Johan Rockström deserves to win the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement because he is really the leading scientist and communicator of our time. People know his name, they’ve heard about Planetary Boundaries, and he just explains it so well for impact.
Discover more about Planetary Boundaries and more about Dr. David Obura here.