Most public discussion of biodiversity today is institution-led and anchored in established academic and policy frameworks.
Academic incentives, large NGOs, multilateral agencies, corporate actors, and donor agendas all contribute to a landscape crowded with reports, targets, and indicators, but with little insight or critical thinking.
While everyone has good intentions, the dominant systems and frameworks that shape biodiversity and conservation decision-making are not neutral, may not even correspond with the best available science, or provide the best benefits for nature protection.
Yet these frameworks often become the default lens for research, decision-making, and setting conservation priorities.
I know this personally, so here is the origin story for Biodiversity Affairs:
A few years ago, I attempted to raise funds for the Cloud Forest Pigmy Owl, a little-known owl from the Colombian Andes.
The institutions defaulted to the Red List, saying it is “only” listed as Vulnerable, not Endangered or Critically Endangered, despite my research, published in a flagship conservation journal, showing it as a high priority for the San Antonio Cloud Forest, near the city of Cali.
So, exactly three years ago, on January 26, I posted a critique of the Red List on Twitter (now X). A friend and colleague responded half-jokingly, half-seriously: “Oh! That’s another one of Ruben’s Rants!”
And it was a total surprise to me that the post went VIRAL.
My rant on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The link to the original tweet.
People in academia were genuinely impressed that I dared to critique such a "sacred cow" of conservation. I reached out to some colleagues in support, and we put together a poignant critique as a preprint titled "The global influence of the IUCN Red List can hinder species conservation efforts" .
The preprint has been viewed more than 5,000 times and is approaching 500 downloads. Stellar numbers for an academic paper. It has already been cited 15 times, despite being a preprint, and was even covered in The Guardian.
In case you are wondering, we have not yet published it in a "reputable" peer-reviewed journal. The conservation gatekeepers have not liked the critique and instead suggest that we write a paper proposing improvements to the Red List.
But this is how most things are: in academia, you think inside a framework, not outside of it.
That experience made it clear that I had far more to say than peer-reviewed journals could reasonably contain, and that there was an audience for it. The real question was how to operationalize this insight and reach those looking for serious, critical thinking on biodiversity and conservation.
From Rants to Affairs
So what began as a rant has become Biodiversity Affairs.
Instead of just posting critiques, I decided to create a serious avenue for independent thinking and analysis of biodiversity and conservation that engages with how biodiversity actually operates in the world of decisions, incentives, and power.
It's a newsletter where I will examine the mechanisms that shape biodiversity outcomes: the frameworks, funding structures, scientific conventions, institutional biases, and, yes, the rants when warranted.
Here, I will provide in-depth briefs and reports on different topics in biodiversity, as well as curated summaries on the latest research that actually matters for conservation. Not just what's trending or what institutions want you to pay attention to, but what the evidence says matters for protecting living organisms and their habitats in practice.
Biodiversity Affairs exists to take biodiversity seriously enough to think about it carefully, critically, publicly, and without asking permission. If you care about what actually works in conservation and how it is shaped, this newsletter is for you.