To save the ocean, Web3 needs more scientists

Decentralized autonomous organizations or DAOs, such as KlimaDAO and Toucan have created cryptocurrencies backed not by dollars or euros but by climate assets. Projects like The Regen Network seek out and support activities with biodiversity and ecological co-benefits.

Now, Web3 tools are being deployed specifically to raise money for ocean conservation, create holistic conservation impact and even to fund ocean science. NFTs have been proposed as means of incentivizing ocean conservation impact. At least 9 new initiatives propose to use NFTs to spur ocean conservation or to convert conservation action into tokens that can be bought and sold as cryptocurrencies.

These new Web3 forays into climate, conservation and science are not without controversy or even failure. Climate-oriented Web3 initiatives have been accused of encouraging demand for poorly designed carbon offsets. WWF UK was forced to quickly withdraw its offering of fundraising NFTs owing to the backlash against associated carbon emissions.

Why Web3 endeavours for ocean conservation need more scientists

Whether or not new Web3 efforts to fund conservation impact will achieve positive outcomes for the ocean and those who depend on it rests largely on whether scientists and researchers play a role in how these Web3 initiatives are developed, applied and governed – especially by providing critical analysis.

So far, little attention has been given to the scholarly review of what these conservation-oriented Web3 initiatives seek to achieve. Do these newer, faster means of channelling money from rich nations to poor lead to new forms of conservation and scientific colonialism?

Can impact really be delivered and verified autonomously?

What happens if new Web3 markets create demand for some aspects of ecosystem health at the expense of others or the people who depend on ecosystems? How does the carbon footprint of these new Web3 conservation efforts compare with business-as-usual approaches?

Independent scholarship is needed to ensure that claims made by new Web3 conservation start-ups and NFT sellers are real, that they can deliver what is promised and that the possibility of unintended consequences has been well considered and mitigated.

Unfortunately, scientists and researchers are only sparsely represented in the Web3 space. Many ocean conservation applications of Web3 are moving forward based on a notable paucity of sound science and use just a handful of peer-reviewed papers on natural asset values that are incomplete (in terms of assessing the full suite of services and disservices in an ecosystem).

This is not to say these approaches are wrong, just that there is a need for considerably more research and evidence before new, global markets are created.

We are in the early days of ocean conservation-oriented Web3 endeavours and scientists and researchers need to engage in Web3 in order to have their voices heard before these Web3 conservation and science projects come to define conservation finance for the next decades. We recommend that:

1. Scientists take a more active role as advisors to and critics of Web3 conservation initiatives.

2. While some scholars focus on the social, economic and technical aspects of Web3, more research is needed on the actual application of Web3 to conservation and ecosystem management;

3. University professors design curricula to prepare students to be critical thinkers in regards to the application of Web3 and digital technologies to conservation, science development and more.

At Moonjelly Academy, we have created a new not-for-profit to stimulate open scholarly debate about critical issues emerging in Web3 for ocean conservation. We invite scientists and scholars to join our work. There is a narrow window of opportunity for the science and research communities to engage in the conversations happening right now that are shaping this digital, but very real, world.

Recent years have brought to light the extent of the systemic failures in conservation and the science that supports it – the traditional funding models that actively stifle innovation, the parachute science that widens resource and knowledge inequities and the colonialism that has plagued traditional conservation.