Nature conservation actions implemented to date have led to gains in biodiversity or contributed to slowing its decline in two-thirds of cases, according to a study claiming to be the first of its kind.

The research, led by the US-headquartered non-profit Re:wild and published in the Science journal, analysed 186 studies covering 665 trials that examined the impact of conservation interventions on species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity over a century. Results showed that 66% of these interventions proved effective.

“If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we’re failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture,” said Penny Langhammer, executive vice president of Re:wild and lead author of the study.

“What we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritised and receive significant additional resources and political support globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsustainable consumption and production.”

The study, funded through the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), took into account a wide range of conservation actions, including the establishment and management of protected areas, the eradication and control of invasive species, the sustainable management of ecosystems, and habitat loss reduction and restoration.

Interventions targeted at species and ecosystems are highly effective, the researchers said.

For example, the deforestation rate in the Brazilian Amazon was 1.7 to 20 times lower within protected areas and Indigenous lands than outside their perimeters, while in the Congo Basin, it was 74% lower in concessions with a forest management plan compared to others.

As well, the management of invasive predators on two of Florida’s barrier islands significantly improved the nesting success of loggerhead turtles and least terns, and captive breeding and release of Chinook salmon in Idaho boosted the natural population without affecting the wild population.

In other cases, conservation actions did not achieve the target, but indirectly benefited other native species.

UNDERFUNDED

“Our study shows that when conservation actions work, they really work. In other words, they often lead to outcomes for biodiversity that are not just a little bit better than doing nothing at all, but many times greater,” said Jake Bicknell, co-author of the paper and a conservation scientist at DICE, University of Kent.

While the researchers argued that this study provides the strongest evidence to date that conservation actions are successful, they stressed that scaling up investments in nature preservation is critical to meet the target of protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030, as set out by the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Notably, the paper called for more investments in the effective management of protected areas.

“Protected areas can show negative impacts if there is poor enforcement and insufficient resourcing, leading to higher rates of resource extraction, poaching, or agricultural expansion,” the study said.

“To ensure that positive effects last, we need to invest more in nature and continue doing so in a sustained way. This study comes at a critical time where the world has agreed on ambitious and needed global biodiversity targets that will require conservation action at an entirely new scale,” added Claude Gascon, co-author and director of strategy and operations at the GEF.

Developed nations have committed to deliver $20 billion in annual nature finance by 2025. Yet, the GEF-administered Global Biodiversity Framework Fund has only raised $214 million so far.

According to a separate study by researchers at the UN Development Programme’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative, total annual investments in biodiversity conservation stand at $121 bln globally, while a comprehensive global conservation programme would require between $178-524 bln.

By Sergio Colombo – sergio@carbon-pulse.com

** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **