Support local people to protect world’s nature, new report urges, as deadline for global conservation target looms

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh have contributed to a new report calling for local communities to be considered in protecting the world’s biodiversity ahead of the key global '30 x 30' conservation deadline.

The original news release was prepared by the University of Cambridge: view original news

A grassy field with hills in the background with Pululahua Geobotanical Reserve in the background. David Worth, Unsplash

A huge number of people will be affected by efforts to achieve ‘30x30’ - the internationally-agreed conservation goal to protect and conserve at least 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030. How many people, and who they are, will depend on which aspects of nature are prioritised for protection - but in all scenarios this human context must be a key consideration if plans are to succeed for both people and nature.

That’s the message of a new report published today in the journal Nature Communications, led by researchers at the University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute and involving a diverse international team of researchers and practitioners, including the University of Edinburgh.

Edinburgh researchers supported the study by designing and interpreting the analysis of gridded human development data, which was used to better understand how conservation policies would intersect with human wellbeing and livelihoods.

In the effort to expand or create new conservation sites, geospatial data is indispensable in mapping the socio-economic landscape, ensuring that conservation strategies not only preserve biodiversity but also enhance the living conditions of local communities, turning conservation areas into catalysts for sustainable development.

Approaches to conservation

The team considered three approaches to conservation that would enable the world to reach 30x30, with the aim of reversing the decline of nature and boosting our resilience to climate change.

In an approach designed to protect as many different species and ecosystems as possible, they found that 46% of all people worldwide would live inside or within 10 kilometres of a conservation area.

Other approaches would affect fewer people overall, but a higher proportion would be socially vulnerable, showing that implementation choices profoundly shape both the number and social profile of people affected.

Living in or close to conservation areas can have positive, negative or neutral implications for livelihoods and wellbeing. Potential benefits include securing a sustainable supply of clean water or access to cultural sites, whereas costs can include people being prevented from living in an area or using it to collect resources.

The final impacts of new conservation areas will depend on how they are designed and managed. For example, there is a major difference between a strict national park and an Indigenous protected area. Whichever approach is taken, making sure that local people do not lose out will require substantial investment, and processes to give local people a voice in decision-making, says the team.

If you look at where new conservation sites might be located, these are not empty landscapes - often a lot of people live there, especially in countries like the UK. Planning land-use change to achieve national and global conservation targets must consider the impacts on local people.
As an example, recent debates about whether to establish a new National Park in Wales highlight the balance that needs to be struck. While supporters say it could reduce flooding, lock up carbon and improve access to nature, critics fear tourism will overload local infrastructure, loss of farmland, and potential impacts on future housing availability.

Protected natural spaces, when properly implemented, can benefit local people. For example, forests can prevent flooding, wildflowers can support insects that pollinate crops, wild harvesting can sustain local livelihoods, and access to natural spaces is important for human wellbeing.

In addition to local benefits, protected natural areas can take carbon out of the atmosphere and help mitigate climate change, which at a grand scale is hugely important for us all. In many cases, however, it’s the people who live closest to conservation areas who tend to experience the downsides.
If the global conservation target is achieved in the right way it could be really beneficial for people as well as nature. It’s an ambitious target, and to get there we need an equally ambitious commitment to supporting local people who are central to achieving it.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out an ambitious pathway to achieving the vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050. The 30x30 goal is part of this Framework. 196 countries, including the UK, made formal commitments to reach this target during the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in 2022.

With only four years left to go and less than 20% of global land and sea protected, the team expects efforts to achieve the 30x30 target will now ramp up significantly. There are ongoing debates about which areas of land and sea should be conserved, and how to ensure successful implementation across the world.

Alternative approaches

The team also considered two other theoretical approaches to achieving 30x30, to explore how different priorities might shape social outcomes. The second focuses on protecting large areas of habitat - mainly in the Amazon and the Congo - that provide natural ‘services’ for people around the world, like nutrient cycling and carbon capture. The third prioritises areas with important conservation value that are governed and managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

While these alternative approaches would affect significantly fewer people than one focused on protecting the most species, a higher proportion of the people impacted would be very poor, and vulnerable in various ways.

The team says there is no ‘socially optimal’ approach to conserving nature - the impact on people will vary wildly depending on the priorities by which land is chosen for protection and how the selected sites are governed and managed.

Approaches to conservation

Alternative approaches

Related links