Transcription

• Speaker #0

  How many times have you found yourself surrounded by environmental jargon or complicated frameworks that just aren't tangible or simply are way too complex? I certainly know that I have. Many, many times. Aiita calls this the conservation bubble, a world that can feel disconnected from the very people and places conservation is meant to serve. And he believes stories can help us break out of it. But what if the problem goes deeper? Conservation is rarely a straight path. It takes time, involves countless people, and often asks us to work towards a future that we may never see for ourselves. Yet, we keep looking for quick fixes and simple answers to deeply intricate problems. Aita calls this the conservationist's dilemma. Hey wild ones. Recently, I set myself on a quest to find out how we can tell stories about the planet that actually reach people. There's so much real work happening out there right now, and somehow, so much of it gets swallowed up by the noise. As a communicator, I've spent a long time asking myself, how do you tell a story so it actually lands? So people don't just scroll past it like it's one more headline in the pile. So I started knocking on people's doors. Communicators, conservationists, storytellers, and experts in the field. To ask them, well, how they do it. One of these individuals is our dear friend and wild colleague, Aita Apamaku. Aiita is a wildlife biologist, a National Geographic Explorer from Uganda, and co-chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Wilderness Specialist Group. It's a mouthful. His work brings together science, storytelling, and more inclusive approaches to conservation. Together, we explore how to bring stories into policy spaces, communicate without losing people in the jargon, and embrace conservation as a long-term process rather than a search for quick fixes. But here's the dilemma. If conservation is a long, complex journey, why do we keep trying to tell it? as though there's a quick and simple answer. And what would happen if we started telling a different kind of story? All right, let's dive in. New episodes drop every other Tuesday, so subscribe wherever you're listening to make sure you don't miss an episode. If you like Voices of Wilderness and want to support us, consider giving to the Wild Foundation. It's through your support that we can continue to improve and grow the podcast. And if you're listening on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, we'd really appreciate it if you could leave us a rating. And hey, you can also leave us a comment. We always love hearing from you. And if you want to stay up to date, follow us on Instagram and Substack at Voices of Wilderness. Thank you. Aiita, thank you for being here, especially for this series on... communicating and cutting through the noise. I really appreciate you. How are you doing today? Let's just start there. How are you doing today?

• Aiita

  Yeah, thanks, Jackie. It feels nice to be back here once again. I feel optimistic, always trying to be. And yeah, I think it's a great place to be, at least for today as well.

• Jackie

  You know, that's a great place to start because optimism is sometimes lacking in the world that we're living in right now. So I like that that's where we're starting. I'm just going to dive right in. OK, because you work in a really interesting space in conservation. And this is probably why, well, we were joking just before this that we regard you as like a little celebrity in our eyes. You're a celebrity to us. But you work at a space between in conservation that's between policy, storytelling, National Geographic Explorer. All of these different things, right? And I'm wondering, when you approach some conservation issue, how do you pick which of these tools in your toolkit to use? Because you're pretty good at a lot of things.

• Aiita

  Oh, interesting. What should I say? I feel many times it feels like putting on lots of hats, which is really, really challenging. But I would particularly say my understanding of conservation is of hats. or initially as far as right being from the natural sciences point of view, but I've had the opportunity to experience what it looks like having to do underground work, having to be within policy spaces, but also trying to get to understand how storytelling works. And so far, I wouldn't say it is definitive just yet on how I really understand each of these. The biggest learning, at least for me so far, is that there are different ways to approach conservation in its sense, whether by deciding to focus on science communication or storytelling or deciding to get into the jargon-packed academia or the policy spaces where, as I often say, we are talking to each other and we're not actually finding solutions to things. But then also recently venturing into being an author as well and really trying to understand what that means or how to communicate. But the biggest experience of it all has been that There is space to accommodate each and every kind of quote-unquote conservationist and the different approaches. And I think I would say so far I'm a living testimony to that. I've actually navigated.

• Jackie

  I mean, when you say there's a way to speak to all conservationists, I want to ask you, then this is just kind of a tangent of just my curiosity. When you are working in the policy realm and speaking to more of the general public, What approach do you think works best in terms of communication, like storytelling? Or I know you'd mentioned a little bit about the jargon, but what do you find works? Because the policy realm is so, I know I've said this to you, okay, but like, and just take it from me as just a girl who is not in that world. It's very intimidating to me. But like, what works the best to capture people's attentions with that? Especially considering how slow it can sometimes be, right? Like you might be fighting for some policy change, but that doesn't happen until way down the line, all of that. So what have you found?

• Aiita

  Okay, interesting. So I think at the end of the day, being able to effectively tell stories is the best tool that can really, really work. And we are not yet anywhere close to that with simple terms, international conservation policy spaces. because the space is really so much dominated by organizations or entities that speak within a bubble. So I will call it a conservation bubble in the sense that these are people who meet, say travel to an international convening space, have discussions, create terminologies that they will use to define, maybe define what metrics biodiversity is or how we choose to define biodiversity. and then also categorize which groups of people tend to show up there. But then at the end of the day there is a very big disconnect in the words, the terminologies they use and the terminologies they may need to use to be able to communicate to those who are not present there. So they have a small bubble that they use within the international space but it's very different from how they end up communicating to the general public or to those. Communities are at the front line of the conservation practice and so on. What is effectively happening there is not storytelling at all. It is just throwing and use of big and heavy words out there. And so far, I don't think what has been or what I think is very helpful is it's just a good idea to always remind people in these papers. Policy negotiations get very heated because sometimes it's about power between nations, stronger nations having their own interests. than the ones considered. weaker in court, having their own interests. But then the negotiation is about where do we come to a common point of understanding? And then in such a case, we lose track. I would say we, because I've been in such a space before, we lose track of the stories, of the realities, of the people who are not present in the room. And I've seen situations where individuals share personal stories and reflections. We just can't reset the mind of those who are there. Say, for example, if we're talking about displacement of a local community, and once a local community member shares their story of the displacement, it gets more personal. So in other words, those who are present get to think and understand that, okay, what we're dealing with is a real issue and not an abstract issue or issue where we are using jargon, using very technical words which no one outside this room really understands. And that's where we need more of, historically, within the space. But we've not really figured out or we're not yet at a point where we really know what we should do about how to effectively tell stories in such spaces.

• Jackie

  Well, and you bring up such a good point. I mean, it's people caring about people, right? It's when you can make something personal and empathize with somebody who's going through it. It sounds silly, but that's when the story lands. And it's something that happens naturally, I think, right? Like we are conditioned as people. to receive stories and to learn through stories. For centuries, that's how information was passed down. That's how lessons were passed down. That's how we knew what to do, what was right, what was wrong, what was all of these things. And now, and again, I know this is just my opinion, so feel free to like jump in here, but now we're, we classify and categorize all of these things. And when we work in the policy space, there's, of course, it's important. to have specific wording and language around what's happening and how the policy will be carried forward. But at the end of the day, the reason we're all in that room and sitting there is because of some sort of human issue. And maybe not just human. There might be a species issue or a biodiversity issue, but also a lot of the times it comes back to a human issue. And so I love that you're saying that because We almost forget to go back to the simplest thing that we've always done, right? And it's like, if we could do that, do you feel, if we could do more of that, do you think that this policy space would move a little bit more quickly or because people might empathize more or not lose track of why these things are happening? Or do you think, unfortunately, this is kind of just the way that policy works and it's a slower track? that we have to just give in to.

• Aiita

  Yeah, I think maybe just to also build on that, I particularly would think that this is just the way we have adopted how the policy space really should work. But one thing that I would really say is that any society that is created by humans always has an alternative. So if we think this is how the policy space works, we have the honor to create another reality of how the space should work. In a literal sense, I would, as a starting point, think about... I'm still using international spaces, for example. I would think about having, say, maybe having just deliberate story sharing session as a way to just step back a bit because everything that happens in these spaces is very fast. It's really, really fast. And definitely what we'll have presented are technical papers, technical notes, reports from programs and projects that people are carrying out. But sometimes just a personal story from... a community within which, say, an organization has been working, goes further to touch down the emotion of the individuals who are there. Because what we are trying to present in reports is a collective of stories. But when you present stories in a collective, it's really hard to feel the impact of what exactly is being done. But then, once you think about it critically, within the collective of stories, it is a combination of individual stories that goes on. to influence this change. But then another aspect to think about is that the metric that we use for reporting or policies is very different from the emotional metric that stories actually do hold and entail. But it is also really different when we are trying to approach the lens of science communication because stories or people are to some extent different from how we actually choose to communicate science. I might maybe hint on that later on, but the problem is also, the challenge with science communication at least so far is that it's still seen as this scientifically dominated way of telling stories of things. And so we'll easily see it as we're communicating stories about ecosystems, but not about how the people themselves get to interact and shape these landscapes or ecosystems for what they are. So there are lots of magical layers and I think, yes, I'd say the first literal thing can be, I'll call them step by step or mentor research sessions where delegates of those in these spaces get to listen to firsthand stories of change or how people are impacted wherever they are in the world. I think that could be a very great first step, but it is, as this so far, very challenging. balance Returning science communication within a very fast space. What is this place right open?

• Jackie

  Which is I think for me also I I struggle with that space because I'm like, why are we not doing more of this? And so I get frustrated too easily. So good on you. You're more patient. You're a more patient soul in these spaces, which is needed because obviously the work is so important. I want to turn to your newest, latest endeavor of soon-to-be author, Aita. I, you know, I. Please share whatever you're comfortable sharing. But I do want to go into that a little bit because I want to understand and I want our audience to understand why you've started exploring writing and longer form writing to get your thoughts out. Especially since in a world that's so dominated by quick hits of media and of sound bites and information. Why a book? There's a lot of questions here, so I guess I'll just start there. Why don't you lay the groundwork for your newest project? Because it's really relevant to what we're talking about today.

• Aiita

  Okay, it's very, very interesting. So I haven't been in the space for too long, I should say, and I believe it's the story that every individual who has been within the conservation space, those who are seasoned and those who are just getting in, have had their different encounters, which may or may not be the same. But then with training in natural sciences, there often is this immediate thought or this immediate feeling of natural sciences as the primary authority upon which decisions about conservation are actually constructed, used and also implemented. And over time it's so easy for it's... And I think even most of our training, our training is the most part we're wanting. push us towards you need to have more training in natural sciences and many of us will tend to go towards that because if we want to be conservation practitioners that's what we need to do and of course that's particularly what i did but with time there is this realization that the practice that you're trying to do is just beyond the learning of ecology of natural sciences and it moves further into political relations economic relations cultural identity and dynamics and many of these other things. So in other words, what you're trying to do is just a small subset of the bigger picture in the conservation display. Even before we go on to look at some of these different forces that get to shape how contemporary conservation is practiced, there is a history to how conservation has evolved, for example, before it actually came to be called conservation, in quotes, I would say, from some of the understandings of relational ontology. relational ways of being, there are different communities around the world that are too big as nature, as nature and humans, as a coexisting relationship for the time before the advancements in conservation came to define what conversion would look like. But historically, we saw it come up through histories of eviction, histories of separating humans. from the idea of what nature was and many of these foundational tools and concepts. And it's only until recently that we who are in the conservation space have come to realize that that template we used back then was not working. So we need to look at something that is more holistic. And the ensuing challenge, at least for now, is that we are still using a template from that fortress conservation model to be able to figure out how we should design more inclusive conservation, which is also really, really challenging. And there are no answers to that. And so when you listen to most of these things I've said, it feels like one confusion over the other and more and more confusion where you are not getting any solution to anything. And so about slightly over two years ago, I began piecing some of these ideas down through and I call it a conservationist dilemma, the dilemma of a conservationist. My initial idea around this was that around the frustration of I don't seem to understand or figure out what exactly is going on and I don't seem to have a grip on how best to address this because my understanding getting into the space was that if this is a career path it will be well defined it will be clear and these are the things that need to be done but as things keep changing, technology, pandemic coming in, different perspectives in what. conservation, social science looks like, discoveries and lots of other things. It's not a straight path, it's up and down. And so I started pissing down. these ideas which somehow turned out into a book. And I structured it out. It's structured into a number of sections where I particularly tried to dissect the origins of conservation. The writing style I used for it is both based on personal stories and reflections, but also trying to dig into critical academic scholarship on some of the foundations of conservation principles, contemporary practice. And so in the first part of it all, I dug into what are the origins of conservation? What does it particularly mean for how we perceive conservation right now? Then the second part is where I got to think about, I got to use some practical case examples from field-based practice or many other experiences to really dissect some of the challenges that exist and also maybe shine some light on the bright sides of how it has been so. And towards the end of it all, I now decided to look at, well, It's not only about problems. There are not only problems ever, but there is always a way we can try to make things better. And I think that's where we should focus on in terms of changing the terminology that we're using within the conservation space in terms of... Because there's a concept I talked about called slow conservation, where we really should not be looking for quick results because the timescale within which, say... natural landscapes recover after periods of disruption. These are long timescales that might span over two or three generations of individuals. And when we want to try and look for quick fixes, we are actually destroying systems more than we can actually bring them back. And so what we should be focusing on is, and this is very important and critical for how funding institutions are going to support. any work on conservation because the idea of wanting to have quick results is where the problem begins. Because again, conservation that we are doing right now is so much driven by resources. And so quick fixes just destroy more than they can create, than they can regenerate and create. However, I also did try to highlight how in order to move forward, we should not be looking for solutions. Instead what we should look out for are things that work for the present and let's not worry about tomorrow. Look, try to focus on what is working for now and then maybe the next 15 or 20 years will come with this new set of challenges and then we'll face it for what it is. And that's when I would say, in simple terms, there's no such thing as solutions because it is just, okay, let's go with the flow and see what's there. But again, just as the title is, the book tries to talk about how everything that we're doing is just a dilemma. And it's okay to be in that dilemma. It's okay not to have answers to everything because what you should focus on is right in the present. It has been, I would say, a little thought-provoking and being able to do some lots of reading here and there, comparing case scenarios, putting in experiences, and I've been excited about it because it's a level of growth and understanding that has come through with all of this, at least to this point.

• Jackie

  Oh, I'm sure. And I can't wait to read it someday when it's published. And I mean, I agree with so much of what you're saying in there. The slow conservation really resonates with me because I think we are too quick. You know, we're just trying, like you say, quick fixes. They're not going to work. They're band-aids. The timescale that we're working on with these ecological processes is huge. So to think that we can just say, okay, we're going to do this one thing. and change this one thing and then tomorrow everything will be solved is not realistic right i mean i think it's a dream that people have and people but also people want to feel like there's progress that's being made and i think that's how conservationists and conservation communication communicators have kept the general public engaged right like do this then here's the outcome. We need your help here. so that we can then see this outcome happen right now, and it's tangible. But in your opinion, I guess, because of this slow conservation model, which I agree with, how do you keep people engaged? Is it through stories? Like, what do you see? And there's no right answer, I guess, but just in your professional opinion, what is that? How do you keep them wanting to help?

• Aiita

  Yeah, interesting. So I'll begin by saying there is a piece I came across somewhere where someone talked about how... We are the ones who need to save ourselves, and then we don't need to save ourselves. And the pressure that we face, the pressure that conservation communicators face, is very different from the pace at which, say, natural ecosystems are regenerating. Because if we're trying to talk about, we're trying to bring in optimism and try to tell people to change. change their behavior in ways that are more compatible what you want to do is communicate the reality that this change is happening way slower than we need to and one of the challenges i think exists is is pressure bombing people to think that if you did this right now in the next the impression of the next three or six months or one year this is what we expect to see but what What's going on? what we actually should be saying is that if we did this right now in the next 20 to 50 years, this is what we expect to see. So in other words, what conservation communicators should be doing is giving this long-term thinking so people can understand that these processes, ecological or natural processes, take a longer time, but not pressure bombing, so that people think, oh, if I do this, then I should expect results seen naturally. And sometimes this kind of pressure loop might also go on to affect our fantasy of supporting conservation work, wanting quick returns and quick fixes of their own things, which is really really challenging and a problem and I think it's important for us to start trying to people can shift from pressure bombing to communicating and letting people know that hey the reality is that things will take longer and that's what you need to stick to. It's a good thing so far that What has been achieved so far right now in just letting people know, in letting people say the side effects of degrading and so on, it's important to let people know that. But it's not ideal to get people under pressure so that they feel they get trapped or so that they feel these quick fixes will solve things because quick fixes never really solve anything at all.

• Jackie

  That being said, there's so many things that you said in there. The pressure bombing I so relate with. Also, I think that there's something to this slower conservation model that can really resonate with people actually creating change in their lives. Like almost, it almost feels like right now with how much is being thrown at us constantly that we are. It's almost like if you don't, if you're not 100% perfect, then everything you're doing is not going to make a difference. Whereas in this slower conservation model, the timelines are long. And so obviously we want people to be perfect citizens of the world and perfect conservationists. We also know that that takes time and sometimes that takes a balance, just like anything else in life, right? Like. you think diets or becoming healthier or working out more consistently and i know you love to work out i've seen it in action but like i got a smile that makes me so happy i got a smile from maita but you know like these things it takes balance you can't be perfect 100 of the time and so i almost think this idea of slow conservation is an even more appealing model you to getting people to actually like understand what they need to do. And then I think it makes the story land. Like for the sake of this series, we're talking about how to cut through the noise and how to get people on board to actually create change. It seems to me like that's a great solution, right? Painting the picture of, listen, this is, these are longer timelines. We don't need everybody to be 100% perfect, but we need you to try. and we need you to be human through that experience. So I love that. Thank you. I don't know if that's what you were thinking, but that's what came up in my mind for me when I hear you say that. Is there anything that resonates with you on that or you're just kind of like, I guess, yeah, sure.

• Aiita

  Yeah, well, the concept of slow conservation is not a definitive one. It's just this conceptual idea of trying to slow down a number of things, trying to slow down on how we communicate about conservation. in terms of timelines, most importantly, how standards or institutions that support conservation work can also really slow down and stretch. timelines within which they want reporting of things to be done because natural processes are not going to be aligned with their interests because we're not negotiating with how natural systems work they take their time so they're the ones who are just just as i said we're the ones who make healing and lots of things so again it's uh i think what you also shared is part of the broader the broader visual understanding of slow consumption itself and somewhere in the book i did talk about patient capital and 50-year visions So within that bachelor section, I was, well, I find this in the word capital problematic, but well, since that's the frame we're operating, it is more of, if there are investments in nature conservation, then they should look more at longer term returns and operate within visions that are not two or three years, but maybe 10, 20, 30 or 50 years. Because at the end of it all, the principle logic is that whatever we're preparing for right now. is not going to be, we're not going to benefit from it. It's going to be benefited from by those maybe two or three generations ahead. Those who began the industrial revolution and accelerated the rate at which humans were causing damage everywhere, they probably didn't feel the pressure as much, but we get to feel it right now. And that's how this effectively moves on. So when you think about it in long-term cycles, then that is also one of the ways to think of within these long-term cycles. And there is... I also used an analogy of there is about the slow food movement, which came up in Italy at some point. And the idea is it came up as an idea. It was started in 1989 by Carlo Petrini, where he was trying to oppose the idea of McDonald's coming into Italy, for example. So I called it the slow food movement because I'm using that analogy. So the slow food movement was trying to remind people that, you know what, fast foods are here. They are inherently not the best thing. But the better thing for us to do is go on with our normal way of food, maybe organic food and so on. Enjoy the process of preparing food. Enjoy the process of growing food. And that's a similar concept when we cascade it into how we should do conservation practice. Yeah, that's the analogy I also just wanted to bring up there.

• Jackie

  So for... Everyone listening, we're human beings and we've had technical issues, but it's okay. We've worked through it. And Julia's blood pressure has come down. So we're doing better. All that to say, though, I really loved the track that we were on, Aiita. And, you know, I really hope people take something away from that because the examples that you shared and the idea of slow conservation, I think is truly the future of what we're, of where. conservation communication is going towards because with the way that it's happening now there's too much bombardment of information and it's not actually leading to stories landing resonating with people and change happening i do want to ask you two more questions though before we wrap up one it's a simple one but what keeps you so optimistic

• Aiita

  I think one of what keeps me optimistic is that we we all don't know what exactly it is we are really doing. And everything we're doing is just an experiment to try and find out what really works. And that now creates a cycle of continuously learning from what's not working, what's working. I choose to say conservation evidence is a combination of both what works and what doesn't, but more of what doesn't work. So I think that's what keeps me going, just learning from what's not working. But of course, optimism at all times.

• Jackie

  I love that. I love that. You're like, we need more of you in the world, learning from what's not working and that fuels you to continue moving forward. I love that as opposed to just giving up. Okay, so how do we learn how to clone you? We have to clone Aitas so that we have them all over the world. That's my new mission. That can be our next series. How to clone Aiita. It's perfect.

• Aiita

  Oh, well, about the cloning, we might need to do some, we might need to... Might need an ethical board or something of the sort for that. But okay. It might be a good idea.

• Jackie

  It would be a little complicated.

• Aiita

  Maybe the book would be a starting way to actually clone what we call into that side of thinking.

• Jackie

  Hey, I love that way of thinking. It's kind of like books are, ooh, now we're getting really meta. It's like books are clones of thoughts out into the world.

• Aiita

  Yeah, absolutely.

• Jackie

  I love it.

• Aiita

  So the understanding with reading books is once you read a book, you're trying to read the mind of the writer. So that's the assumption.

• Jackie

  Yes. Yeah, that's so true. And what a cool way of, I mean, I had asked you really briefly earlier on, like, why a book? Why are you choosing to go with a book? But with this perspective, it makes so much sense.

• Aiita

  Yeah, interesting, because one, from a personal point of view, this is more personal. I think I have taken so much time putting that together to a point that I feel those thoughts are really, really valid and that people need to be able to read through and understand. Maybe what has been running through my mind about this space for quite a number of years now, but I think it's important that we should start getting back to long-term content because it's very healthy for our brains, which is also part of the whole idea of slow conservation anything. Because when you read a book, you have a bit of patience and trying to understand how have things been. But I also do believe books are very timeless. In other words, what is read right now may be applicable in the longer term, but there is no way I'm going to get a book and want to read it in five minutes. It will give me the patience to settle in and try to go through whatever the author or the one who wrote it was trying to say. And I think we just need to convert more people into reading as well. But this is not my way of saying I'm pivoting wholly into writing. But it's still one. It's a phase of life where it is what I'm looking at right now. But maybe over the next one or two years, it might change. But of course, I'm very excited about the piece that I put together, really. Because I think it's really relatable.

• Jackie

  I agree. I think, I mean, it absolutely is. The minute you said it to me, I was like, yeah, can I read this? Because this is the sort of information that I need. Every day, I feel like I'm facing. a conservationist's dilemma, you know? And so, and there's a reason that this field is difficult to work in. Final question, and I promise I'll be quick, but if you can leave our audience with one, one tangible thing that you find helps a story land with them and really resonate with them, what would that one thing be?

• Aiita

  Well, I, I would say look out for where they motion. the emotion of that story really is, whether it's a good or a bad emotion or it's nostalgic. That emotion is important because we as humans relate to emotions and things. And that's for sure. And I think that's the purpose of any story. Any story that doesn't have emotion is really not a story. So the good emotion will get us feeling inspired, will get us feeling positive. The bad emotion will make us feeling... story about things to make us at some point also get to feel optimistic as well and uh one of the things i particularly like about a story that i did run on on antelope species called the bonte book was where i was trying to i commit trying to communicate the emotion emotion of a species that was near was once almost going to extinction and the emotion there was this is not a good thing but then towards the end, towards the message of hope that, well, it almost went extinct, but it survived and is still there. So use this information the way you want to. And I think that is the purpose of a story, whether it's through written pieces or through videos or through books. That's why the book that I have is both narrative, but also tries to get into critical analysis as well.

• Jackie

  I love it. Thank you so much, Aiita. I cannot wait, truly. And I don't just say this because you're our guest, but because you're a friend and you are such a wealth of knowledge. I can't wait for myself and for everybody in our realm to get their hands on your book someday. You're always such a pleasure to talk to. And this has just been truly the highlight of my day. So thank you, Aiita.

• Aiita

  Yeah, thanks, Jackie. And And, uh... It's great to, it was great to be here on this podcast and look forward to connecting further.