What we've learned

We take from nature at scale. But selectively. It's both destructive and wasteful. The selective focus on single commodities drives a monoculture and an income dependency which traps rural communities into activities that further harm the grasslands, simply to keep afloat. That's the real tragedy of the commons.

Arguing that, in the face of climate change, Mongolian herders have no choice other than to "simply adapt", is a cop out. It's not helping - adaptation strategies are not just about resilience, they are also climate change mitigation strategies. We need to give herders all the help we can not just to adapt but to reduce pressure on degraded ecosystems. The question isn't whether we should work at the community level or the macro level—we need both, simultaneously.

Why is sustainable cashmere so elusive? There is a gap between today's supply chains and effective landscape regeneration that cannot be bridged. This is fundamental because it means that all attempts to drive sustainability through the existing supply system cannot influence outcomes in the landscapes. It is the reason why brands can't exert the influence they want - the system won't let them. The answer lies in redesigning the supply system in a way that links to landscape

Environmentally conscious brands shouldn't pay premiums to source "sustainable" materials. Instead they should invest in landscapes.

Should we put a number on nature? How can we tell if rangelands are regeneration is working? Can lying cows tell you it's raining?