HOLISTIC APPROACH IN RESEARCH FOR PROTECTING NATURE As we enter a last-chance decade for tackling the global nature crisis, scientists have outlined a new framework for implementing global commitments to restoring nature, The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy, or Four Steps for the Earth.
In research published today led by the University of Oxford’s Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, specialists from 22 institutions worldwide including the UN Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) recognize that there has never been a more important time for ambitious action for biodiversity and that everyone, across all sectors of society, has a role to play. The need for transformative change for biodiversity There is overwhelming evidence that human actions are driving a crisis for biodiversity, and that transformative change is needed. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should be agreed at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties. The Global Biodiversity Framework will hopefully provide the necessary impetus for transformative change not just for nations but for corporations, industries, and the general public. The idea of integrating a "net outcomes" ambition into this global plan has gained ground, with conservation organizations calling for a "nature-positive" Global Goal for Nature by 2050 (https://www.naturepositive.org). Ambitious conservation goals must translate into real-world action. Very few elements of the CBD's existing Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for 2011–2020 have been successfully implemented,8 although there is some evidence of positive outcomes for biodiversity (such as averted species extinctions). Overall, conservation actions and impact reduction are often uncoordinated and unmonitored, and thus their success in addressing biodiversity loss is unclear.7 Meanwhile, practices with positive conservation outcomes, including by local communities and Indigenous peoples, may be overlooked or displaced by more damaging activities, to the detriment of both the environment and human wellbeing. The "mainstreaming” of biodiversity can help address these challenges by translating high-level goals into meaningful and inclusive actions at multiple scales throughout society. Biodiversity mainstreaming is defined as “the process of embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies, and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that biodiversity is conserved, and sustainably used, both locally and globally.” If implemented effectively, mainstreaming biodiversity can produce a shared sense of responsibility among diverse stakeholders, empower a proactive and preventative response to biodiversity loss, and help businesses and investors manage risk and opportunity. This can help translate the high-level aspirations of international agreements into practical actions on the ground. Supporting mainstreaming One reason why biodiversity mainstreaming has been challenging is the lack of a framework that includes both specific impact mitigation measures and the broader actions needed to achieve net gains in biodiversity. Such a framework would need to be scalable, cross-sectoral, and grounded in existing practice, allowing countries, organizations, communities, and individuals in all sectors to understand what actions and outcomes they can contribute toward global biodiversity targets. This framework requires not only a clear articulation of the outcome goals and targets at the global scale, but also of the actions necessary to achieve them at the local, national, and regional scales, and a mechanism to measure biodiversity gains and losses toward a net outcome. The MCH can address this gap, providing a framework that can be used at all scales and by all actors for coordinating, prioritizing, and tracking the many and various actions that collectively contribute to biodiversity goals. It builds on an original proposal by Arlidge et al., and further developed by Bull et al.3 Its starting point is the well-established Mitigation Hierarchy for addressing biodiversity impacts, with its precautionary four-step approach to mitigating the direct, attributable biodiversity impacts of a development project (step 1: avoid the impact; step 2: minimize the impact; step 3: restore/remediate the biodiversity affected by the impact; step 4: offset any residual impact to achieve "no net loss" or "net gain" of biodiversity overall; ). However, to fulfill the ambitious goal of restoring nature, the MCH adds a parallel pathway, the "Conservation Hierarchy," which applies the same "Four Steps" framing to conservation actions to produce better overall biodiversity outcomes by including aspects not addressed by project-specific mitigation measures . The hierarchical element of the MCH is important, such that prevention of impacts (steps 1 and 2) is prioritized overcompensation (steps 3 and 4). We modify the language (from avoid/minimize/remediate/offset to the "Four Rs" of Refrain/Reduce/Restore/Renew) partly to underline the evolution of the Mitigation Hierarchy into the MCH and partly to highlight the "Renew" step, which goes beyond offsetting to encompass proactive conservation actions. Step 1 (retain biodiversity, avoid impacts) no-take zones; conservation set-asides/easements; zero deforestation commitments; safeguarding critical habitat; restrictions to international trade in certain vulnerable species (through CITES); gene banks for landraces/traditional livestock breeds; avoiding damage to intact ecosystems; biosecurity to prevent introduction or establishment of invasive alien species Step 2 (minimize and reduce impacts) sustainable use; agri-environment schemes; organic and low chemical input agriculture; agroforestry and non-intensive shifting agriculture; shifting from passive non-selective gear to actively targeted gear in fisheries; shifting from reliance on virgin raw materials toward products that are produced via circular processes; demand reduction for unsustainable wildlife products; control or management of the impacts of invasive alien species Step 3 (restore and remediate impacts) species conservation translocations (including reinforcements and reintroductions); degraded ecosystem restoration; natural flooding of wetlands; reforestation; chemical decontamination; invasive alien species eradication; better bycatch handling and release practices; fish stock replenishment Step 4 (renew biodiversity) species introductions for conservation purposes (including assisted colonization and ecological replacements); rewilding; ecosystem creation, such as artificial reefs; greening cities and urban areas; developing innovative technologies and systems to enable sustainable consumption. The MCH, therefore, expands on the established Mitigation Hierarchy approach in two key ways: First, it is designed to be used by sectors, and for impacts, where the Mitigation Hierarchy has not yet been widely applied. This includes use by entities, such as city councils, community groups and individuals, and sectors, including natural resource exploitation (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, and forestry), where the impacts are sometimes geographically dispersed through long, complex value chains, and where environmental licensing does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment or consideration of the Mitigation Hierarchy. Consequently, it goes beyond mitigating biodiversity impacts that are direct by-products of development (e.g., habitat destruction by an infrastructure project) to also address the impacts of resource exploitation (e.g., the effect of timber extraction on a forest ecosystem). Second, it adds a conservation element that goes beyond mitigating direct negative impacts to encompass any activities affecting nature (positive or negative, attributable to specific entities or not, past or current). This means that conservation actions to address historical, systemic, and non-attributable biodiversity loss can be accounted for in the same framework as actions to mitigate specific impacts. In addition, the fourth step of the MCH expands beyond offsetting to encompass proactive actions beyond those directly tied to redressing current attributable impacts, to achieve an overall net positive outcome (such as greening cities). This fourth step, therefore, supports the transformational change required to reset humanity's relationship with nature.1 The MCH is, therefore, an overarching framework for unifying direct impact mitigation with traditional conservation, which could make a major contribution as part of the delivery of an aspirational, outcomes-based, and measurable post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Figure 2). The intuitive simplicity of the Four Steps framing, and its broad applicability to a range of users and circumstances, is designed to foster broad ownership. Biodiversity metrics Either way, the metrics chosen should relate meaningfully to the goals and targets that have been set. This is particularly important for the impact mitigation stream, where quantifiably demonstrating at least no net loss would ideally be a requirement for all new developments. However, impact mitigation needs to evolve beyond having the final step as traditional best practice offsetting to reach no net loss with respect to an already-degraded, or degrading, system. Instead, it needs to move toward requiring gains in biodiversity that relate meaningfully to the overall goal. It also needs to be clear that any loss of irreplaceable natural features cannot be offset to achieve net gain, or even no net loss, outcomes. There are no “counterbalancing” conservation actions that can offset such losses, only actions that can to some extent reduce them and seek to compensate for them in some “out of kind” way. The fact that the MCH sets impact mitigation within a broader set of conservation actions, and encourages meaningful allocation of contributions toward an overarching goal, should help in making explicit what these losses are, and what actions are addressing them. Much terrestrial biodiversity is on the lands of IPLCs,19 and many communities are struggling to prevent environmental degradation by opposing large-scale external interventions, many of which also contravene national and international law and policy on rights. Many communities are also working actively to maintain and restore biodiversity on their lands, using a mixture of traditional and science-based knowledge (e.g., the Forest People’s Programme11). They are doing so through a rights-based approach involving securing legal tenure over customary lands, and also through gaining recognition for their contributions to area-based conservation (for example, as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures.82 The MCH offers a tool to integrate different kinds of community contributions to conservation into decision making, by communities themselves and by other interest groups, both with respect to specific interventions and in regional and national planning. This includes IPLCs' actions toward avoidance and minimization (e.g., community measures to control wildfires or limit hunting or fishing to sustainable levels) and toward positive gain (e.g., community tree planting, habitat enrichment or restoration, or control of invasive alien species). However, if external actors apply the four steps in the context of areas managed by Indigenous peoples, this will need to be nuanced and compatible with international law and policy on rights. For instance, refraining from disrupting established territorial management systems may not only be a legal requirement, but also a sensible approach where such systems are delivering results. Collaborating to reduce the external pressures on Indigenous groups which lead to negative impacts on conservation and wellbeing may also be an important and highly effective approach. Application by the general public The simplicity of the core concepts of the MCH allows individuals to apply these principles to their daily lives, replicating the success of “reduce, reuse, recycle” campaigns with wording, such as “The 4 R's” (Refrain, Reduce, Restore, Renew; . The MCH thereby provides an intuitive framework that supports individuals to understand the impacts of their own lifestyle choices, choose potential lower-impact alternatives, and account for their contributions toward larger societal biodiversity goals. Such an approach could be enhanced through public-facing campaigns using behavioral science methods. The full potential of the MCH will only be clear when it is implemented in practice, at a range of scales, for different sectors, impacts, and circumstances. Pilot studies already suggest its usefulness for the diagnosis and framing of potential conservation actions. To support its role in accounting for actions, more work needs to be done to define how losses and gains can be aggregated in a consistent manner across disparate contexts, and to more explicitly incorporate people's values for nature. K RAJARAM IRS 19825 On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 18:56, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > > > -- > *Mar**The denigration of the Holistic approach* > > *When you begin feeling as a part of the Universe and actually attempt to > participate in the continuous transformations or changes or rhythm of the > Universe as a part of the Universe, you cannot have any analysis or > division. Both the subject and the object are one. The word ‘both’ makes no > meaning. You do not need any language because; language is needed only when > there is categorization. The holistic approach is the approach of > experiencing, feeling, participation in the Universe as the > Universe...where language has no place. You do not cut away from the > Universe but try to become an integral part.* > > *When you leave the participation and become a spectator or observer, then > you designate a subject, the target of impact of the subject-the object, > and the actual method of impact-the verb. With your language, you have cut > yourself from the Universe and then you have devised the tools of the > division. You further strengthened your method of categorization by > designations-the adverb which tells about the method, intensity etc of the > impact or verb, the adjective to precisely pin point the category of the > subject and the object, the preposition to solidify the concepts of space > and time as separate from the timeless and space less Universe, the > sentence-the autonomous entity with the essential ingredients—subject, > object and verb. LANGUAGE HAS MADE YOU AN INCURABLE ADDICT, A PATIENT WHO > SUFFERS FROM THE INABILITY TO LIVE IN THE PRESENT AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE > AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNIVERSE. Cutting away from the actual > participation and experience, is scientific study. The addiction has become > so chronic that you have become the slave of technology.* > > *Now try the holistic approach at least now. Make your mind blank, totally > thoughtless and then experience. You live as a part of the Universe, very > happy, totally healthy—the real universe or the Amandananda---the > personification of happiness---the real space-time continuum.* > > *Suppose you can see everything, there is no invisible spectrum at all. > You see the atoms, energies... everything. Then when you look at yourself, > you cannot find yourself. You see atoms etc, flowing into the so called you > and also leaving the so called you. You realize that there is only one > entity—the Universe. You cannot even conceptualize yourself.* > > *When there is only one unit—the Universe, you cannot answer the question > where, because the very question where indicates the assumption of more > than one unit. Where implies by the side of, near etc implying more than > one unit.* > > *You cannot also answer the question-when, because the question when > indicates an event or interaction, but there can be no event or interaction > or event, when there is only one unit.* > > *The words-space and time, have no meaning in the holistic approach.* > > *In the name of science we are dividing and analyzing, we are running away > from unity.* > > *YM Sarma* > > *Chat gpt* > > This passage by YM Sarma presents a *critique of the scientific and > linguistic worldview* through a philosophical lens grounded in *holism*, > emphasizing the *inseparability of self and universe* and the limitations > imposed by language and analytical thinking. > > Here’s a breakdown of the core ideas, with some reflection: > ------------------------------ > > *🔍 1. The Essence of the Holistic Approach* > > - *Unity Over Division*: Holism is presented as a way of *being*, > rather than *knowing*. To be holistic is to experience oneself *not as > a separate individual*, but as *one with the Universe*. > - *No Subject-Object Dichotomy*: When one is part of the whole, > distinctions like "subject" and "object" dissolve. The very notion of > "both" becomes meaningless when only one undivided reality exists. > > ------------------------------ > > *🧠 2. The Role (and Trap) of Language* > > - *Language as Division*: Language is inherently dualistic. It > requires distinctions—subject, object, action—and therefore imposes > *separation*. > - *Grammar as Fragmentation*: The components of grammar (nouns, verbs, > adjectives, etc.) are tools for breaking down experience into analyzable > parts. This is said to *cut us off* from immediate, participatory > experience. > - *Addiction to Abstraction*: Language doesn't just describe reality; > it *shapes* how we experience it. According to Sarma, we have become > addicted to this abstract mode of understanding to the point of losing > touch with the *present moment and the unified whole*. > > ------------------------------ > > *🧪 3. Science as a Symptom of Division* > > - *Science = Observation = Separation*: Scientific method requires > stepping back, observing, measuring—thus reinforcing a detached stance. The > holistic critique claims this creates a *false sense of objectivity* > by denying our participation in the system we study. > - *Technology as a Slave Master*: Technology, built on analytical > knowledge, becomes a feedback loop that amplifies our dependence on > division and abstraction, deepening our alienation from the Universe. > > ------------------------------ > > *🌌 4. Living the Holistic Experience* > > - *Transcend Thought and Language*: Sarma encourages us to *empty the > mind*, become *thoughtless*, and *experience reality directly*—without > labeling, analyzing, or separating. > - *Dissolution of Self*: In total awareness, distinctions dissolve. > Even the notion of “self” becomes meaningless when one recognizes the > constant flow of energy and matter. There’s *only the Universe*. > - *Space and Time as Illusions*: When there is only one indivisible > entity, concepts like “where” or “when” become irrelevant. These ideas > depend on *difference* and *separation*, which the holistic > perspective denies. > > ------------------------------ > > *💬 Critical Reflection* > > While Sarma’s viewpoint powerfully expresses a *non-dual, experiential > metaphysics*, there are some tensions worth noting: > > - *Language is a tool, not an enemy*: While it’s true that language > can separate, it can also be a bridge. Poets, mystics, and even scientists > have used language to point toward unity. > - *Science doesn’t always deny unity*: Quantum physics, systems > theory, and even cosmology often acknowledge interconnectedness. The > problem may be *how* we interpret science, not science itself. > - *Can thought be entirely silenced?* The idea of a "totally blank, > thoughtless mind" may be idealized. Many spiritual traditions seek not to > eliminate thought, but to relate to it differently—with awareness. > > ------------------------------ > > *🧘♀️ Final Thought* > > Sarma’s message echoes deep mystical traditions—from Advaita Vedanta to > Taoism to certain interpretations of quantum mysticism. It challenges us to > *reconsider > the primacy of rational analysis*, and to remember that *knowing the > world isn't always the same as being part of it*. > > Would you like a more condensed version of this for easier sharing or > discussion? > > Sure! Let's evaluate the passage using a structured rubric, as might be > done in an academic or philosophical context. Since this is a reflective, > philosophical essay, I’ll assess it across several key criteria: > ------------------------------ > > *🔍 Evaluation Criteria* > > *Criterion* > > *Max Marks* > > *Marks Awarded* > > *Comments* > > *1. Clarity of Thought* > > 20 > > *15* > > The core idea—holism vs. analytical division—is clear. However, the > writing occasionally becomes abstract and loses coherence, especially for > readers unfamiliar with the concepts. > > *2. Depth of Philosophical Insight* > > 20 > > *18* > > The text offers deep, original insight into consciousness, unity, and the > nature of language. Strong alignment with non-dualistic traditions. > > *3. Structure and Organization* > > 15 > > *10* > > There’s a loose structure, but no clear progression of ideas. Some > repetition and flow issues detract from the impact. Paragraphing could be > improved. > > *4. Use of Language* > > 15 > > *11* > > Passionate and expressive, but sometimes grammatically imprecise. > Occasional overuse of abstract phrasing makes it harder to follow. > > *5. Originality and Creativity* > > 10 > > *9* > > The critique of language and science is uniquely articulated, showing > creative engagement with metaphysical ideas. > > *6. Relevance and Impact* > > 10 > > *9* > > Very relevant in the age of technology and information overload. The > message is thought-provoking and challenges conventional views. > > *7. Philosophical Consistency* > > 10 > > *7* > > The holistic perspective is strongly maintained, but some sweeping > generalizations (e.g. about science and language) could be more nuanced. > ------------------------------ > > *📊 Total: 79 / 100* > ------------------------------ > > *🎓 Grade: B+ (Upper Second Class / Very Good)* > ------------------------------ > > *✅ Strengths:* > > - Deep philosophical perspective > - Emotionally and intellectually engaging > - Resonates with spiritual and metaphysical traditions > > *⚠️ Areas for Improvement:* > > - Improve structure and logical progression > - Clarify abstract concepts for accessibility > - Soften generalizations to avoid oversimplification (especially > regarding science and language) > > ------------------------------ > > Would you like help rewriting or editing this piece to improve clarity and > impact—perhaps for publication or presentation? > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Thatha_Patty" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BFiYJ-fpE_%2BTxbgXrvcPijtTnvQiuywR4hkk_q9i%2BbeQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BFiYJ-fpE_%2BTxbgXrvcPijtTnvQiuywR4hkk_q9i%2BbeQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor5R2attUeZnFKm9YQDGzums2Wq5txRMDJTYvov-8GBuw%40mail.gmail.com.
